CMS România | Romanian court rules pre-existing conditions of patients do not excuse provider liability for nosocomial infections
15 Februarie 2023
CMS RomâniaFor more information on this decision and healthcare liability in Romania, contact your CMS client partner or local CMS experts: Horia Draghici and Andrei Cristescu.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania ruled that healthcare establishments may not avoid liability for nosocomial infections that a patient acquires during hospitalisation, irrespective of the individual's pre-existing health condition. The only chance for a healthcare provider to avoid liability is to provide evidence that the patient already carried the pathogen before admission to the establishment.
The case
An individual identified as "Mr. B" was hospitalised in Timisoara for heart disease. During hospitalisation, he died from a nosocomial infection. His wife sued the hospital and claimed damages, arguing that the hospital is liable for the infection. The first court and the appeal court dismissed the claim, but the High Court of Cassation and Justice (i.e. Romania’s Supreme court) decided that the hospital is liable for the death of the patient caused by a nosocomial infection.
The case
An individual identified as "Mr. B" was hospitalised in Timisoara for heart disease. During hospitalisation, he died from a nosocomial infection. His wife sued the hospital and claimed damages, arguing that the hospital is liable for the infection. The first court and the appeal court dismissed the claim, but the High Court of Cassation and Justice (i.e. Romania’s Supreme court) decided that the hospital is liable for the death of the patient caused by a nosocomial infection.
Law no. 95/2006 regarding the reform of the healthcare system, Article 655 (1) a)
The decision was based on Art. 655 para. (1) letter a) of Romania's Law no. 95/2006 that provides: “Public or private healthcare establishments, as providers of healthcare services, shall be civilly liable, according to general law provisions, for damages caused during the activity of prevention, diagnosis or treatment, if they are the consequence: (a) nosocomial infections, unless an external cause beyond the control of the healthcare establishment is proved. (…)”
Hence, in order to trigger liability on the basis of the above legal provision, the claimant must only prove that the injury was caused by a nosocomial infection during the activity of prevention, diagnosis or treatment, while the only way in which the defendant can be exonerated from liability is to prove an external cause beyond the establishment's control.
Proof of negligence is not required.
The law does not establish the meaning of the "external cause beyond the control of the healthcare establishment", so it is subject to interpretation of Romanian courts.
Application in this case
The first court and the appeal court considered that by weakening the immune system the pre-existing health condition favoured the nosocomial infection and that this represented an external cause that could not be controlled by the hospital, as provided in Article 655 (1) a). This decision was rendered even though the evidence indicated that the death of Mr. B was caused by the nosocomial infection acquired in the hospital.
In the second appeal, the High Court of Cassation and Justice invalidated the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for retrial. The High Court of Cassation and Justice concluded that the state of immunological vulnerability, caused by previous diseases, is irrelevant and does not constitute an external cause in the meaning of Article 655 (1) a) of Law no. 95/2006.
The reasoning was that this legal provision establishes an objective tort liability of healthcare establishments for damages caused to patients by nosocomial infections as a consequence of the providers' failure to comply with their legal safety obligations. The risk of nosocomial infections belongs to the healthcare establishment and cannot be transferred to the patient.
To avoid the introduction of pathogens within the healthcare establishment, patients are examined at the time of admission to the health establishment. After that moment, the medical conditions of patients come under the power and control of the healthcare establishment, which has an obligation to guarantee the prevention of nosocomial infections. When the damages are caused by a nosocomial infection (i.e. the determinant cause), the liability of the healthcare establishment is triggered. In this case, the contributing causes such as a weak immune system is of no relevance.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice also established that the only situation where the previous diseases can be relevant is when, at admission to the healthcare establishment, the patient is the carrier of the pathogen, which the healthcare establishment could not discover in the framework of its medical investigations. As this exception was not applicable, the High Court decided to admit the final appeal.
Comment
The case underlines that Article 655 (1) a) of Law no. 95/2006 provides an objective tort liability, as it is not necessary to prove negligence. Furthermore, it provides a benchmark for determining whether a particular circumstance constitutes an "external cause beyond the control of the healthcare establishment". Hence, it shows that if the healthcare establishment is to avoid liability, it needs to provide evidence that the source of the patient's nosocomial infection occurred outside of the healthcare establishment. In this case, the infection must be discovered before the patient's admission into the healthcare establishment.
In particular, the decision shows that the pre-existing health condition does not exonerate the establishment from liability. (As a rule, all patients admitted to healthcare establishments have pre-existing health conditions). Therefore, the standard of proof for healthcare establishments to avoid liability for nosocomial infections is high and healthcare establishments should put in place procedures for early screening of newly admitted patients to discover pathogen agents.
Additionally, the reasoning of the High Court of Cassation and Justice confirmed the high level of legal protection of patients that acquire nosocomial infection during admission to healthcare establishments.
For more information on this decision and healthcare liability in Romania, contact your CMS client partner or local CMS experts: Horia Draghici and Andrei Cristescu.
This article has been co-authored by Diana Ceausu, Lawyer.
Publicitate pe BizLawyer? |
Articol 559 / 4400 | Următorul articol |
Publicitate pe BizLawyer? |
BREAKING NEWS
ESENTIAL
ZRVP: 30 de ani de tradiție în avocatură, un nou look pentru viitor | Cosmin Vasile (managing partner): Noua imagine reflectă identitatea și tradiția brandului nostru, reinterpretate într-o manieră modernă și îndrăzneață
Precedent important obținut de RTPR pentru Premier Energy Furnizare în materia teoriei impreviziunii. Despăgubiri de aproximativ 4 milioane EUR și dobânzi legale penalizatoare, ca urmare a neexecutării unui contract de furnizare de energie încheiat pe piața PCCB-BC. Alexandru Stănoiu (Counsel) și Ana Popa (Senior Associate), în echipa coordonată de Valentin Berea (Partener)
Bulboacă și Asociații facilitează atragerea de finanțare, la final de an, pentru o companie românească de succes din industria panificației
Cum a fost anul 2024 pentru Duțescu & Partners: poziționare în topul internațional al firmelor de avocați evidențiate în practica de Capital Markets, lansarea practicii de drept islamic și multe victorii obținute pentru clienți | De vorbă cu Dr. Cristian Duțescu (partener fondator) și Casiana Dușa (partener) despre parcurs, proiecte și realizări
Mușat & Asociații a obținut rejudecarea cererii de revizuire în cazul torționarilor lui Gheorghe Ursu
Edward Sukyas pierde arbitrajul cu statul român și trebuie să plătească peste o jumătate de milion de euro - cheltuieli arbitrale și onorarii plătite avocaților care au apărat România. Litigiul cu Jack Sukyas merge mai departe, modul de alocare a cheltuielilor de arbitraj fiind decis într-o etapă ulterioară a procedurii | Cât au însumat onorariile primite de avocații români aflați de-o parte și alta a baricadei și ce sume au încasat arbitrii
Filip & Company a asistat Mozaik Investments la vânzarea unui pachet minoritar din acțiunile 5 to go către Invenio Partners și ACP
Mușat & Asociații își actualizează identitatea vizuală și lansează un nou website
Pentru echipa de insolvență de la Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații, anul 2024 s-a caracterizat printr-o intensificare a volumului de muncă, cu mandate noi care s-au adăugat unui portofoliu existent bogat. Cele mai multe proiecte au avut complexitate și miză ridicată, necesitând extinderea echipelor implicate și un volum mai intens de activitate | De vorbă cu Cătălina Mihăilescu (Partener) despre activitatea departamentului și planurile de viitor
INTERVIURI 2+1 | Povestea lui “Timi”, numele de alint al biroului NNDKP din Nord-Vestul țării, înființat acum 20 de ani într-o perioadă fără smartphone, Google sau LinkedIn, spusă de doi avocați care au trăit intens toate etapele devenirii sale ca furnizor pentru mediul de afaceri local, standard de etică și membru al comunității academice: ”Vineri la prânz încă nu se născuse ideea; luni, la 10:15, era aprobată”. Mai apoi, ”cu profesionalism, corectitudine și smerenie” a devenit ”un organism viu și adaptabil, care se modelează după viața afacerilor din regiune în fiecare moment”
Meet the Professionals | Din vorbă în vorbă cu Cristina Roșu, proaspăt promovată Partner în cadrul firmei Toncescu și Asociații - KPMG Legal: “Angajarea mea la KPMG Legal după terminarea facultății a fost punctul de plecare al unei călătorii profesionale frumoase și pline de satisfacții, care m-a adus unde sunt astăzi. Am crescut încet, dar constant, în această firmă, dezvoltându-mă ca profesionist, dar mai ales ca om”
Echipa Wolf Theiss dedicată proiectelor din materia insolvenței este în proces de creștere și consolidare, având în vedere interesul ridicat acordat acestui domeniu și creșterea numărului și complexității proiectelor. ”În perioada recentă, ne-au fost solicitate de către clienți numeroase analize privind posibila deschidere a procedurii insolvenței, efectele și riscurile unei astfel de proceduri, dar și opțiunile reglementate pentru restructurarea afacerii, ceea ce arată interesul crescut al companiilor în utilizarea mecanismelor legale”, spun avocații
Citeste pe SeeNews Digital Network
-
BizBanker
-
BizLeader
- in curand...
-
SeeNews
in curand...