someone brought a legal claim Ministry of Health of the Province of Buenos Aires About what happened at Merlo’s hospital. The case focuses on a hospitalization and treatment that occurred at the end of October 2002, which resulted in emergency surgical intervention at another health center. The court of second instance decided Increases compensation amount to $10.2 million Considering that medical malpractice was proven.
The situation began when the patient visited the hospital on October 23, 2002 complaining of severe abdominal pain. He was treated with analgesics and antiemetics and evaluated with imaging and laboratory tests. According to this case, the clinical course included persistent pain in the hypochondrium and lower abdominal region, abdominal distension, and difficulty passing gas and stool.
The patient returned to the same hospital the next day because her symptoms persisted. There, a probe was placed to decompress the abdomen and tests were performed. Analysis showed leukocytosis, slight increase in bilirubin and blood sugar. Images showed microcalculi and gallbladder sludge, suggesting possible biliary colic. According to the patient’s medical history, the patient was showing “good progress” and it was decided that he would be discharged from the hospital with a recommendation for outpatient follow-up to schedule surgery.
That day, after the patient was discharged from the hospital, he had to go to a hospital in the sea island. That’s when I got the diagnosis acute gangrenous cholecystitisa condition that requires urgent intervention. The medical team decided Perform emergency cholecystectomyIf you notice a worsening of the clinical picture, that is, surgical removal of the gallbladder.
An expert report included in court documents believes that the care provided the previous day at the first hospital was correct in several respects. He noted that the placement of the probe and the specific presumptive diagnosis were appropriate depending on the symptoms and the results obtained. However, experts noted that laboratory studies have already made it possible to suspect the presence of cholecystitis. Therefore, it deserves a separate medical intervention.
The first hospital determined that the patient was asymptomatic and recommended that he be discharged from the hospital, but the second health center explained that the patient had severe abdominal pain, yellow skin, and signs of developing gangrenous cholecystitis. The result is Immediate surgical intervention To avoid serious complications.
The reason is this Moron Civil and Commercial Appeals Court Following the trial court’s decision to accept the lawsuit and award damages of $5.1 million, including costs. Both the patient and the defendant appealed. The state government denied responsibility for the incident and questioned, among other things, the assessment of psychological damages and the certified medical costs.
The person filing the lawsuit, however, argued that the set amount did not adequately compensate for emotional harm and did not recognize the costs of medication and hospitalization. He also objected to the interest rate applicable to compensation payments.
The Court of Appeal analyzed the medical expertise; Define expert reports as basic elements To find out whether healthcare is adjusted to current regulations. According to the ruling, in medical malpractice cases, expertise is key to determining the causal relationship between the professional’s actions and the damages suffered.
The court stated, according to court documents: The actions of the initial hospital professionals were negligent or lacked expertise.because the omission of certain medical procedures caused a deterioration of the patient’s health condition. According to the ruling, the initial assessment was incorrect, necessitating emergency intervention at another facility.
With respect to the emotional damages item, the Chamber considered it appropriate to grant an increase given the nature of the physical and mental suffering experienced. The judgment indicates that moral damages include not only physical discomfort, but also suffering and psychological changes during both the acute and convalescent stages.
Regarding medical, drug and hospitalization costs, the court’s judgment upheld that they should be paid as indirect property damage. He cited precedent that notoriously found that despite receiving social work, medical expenses typically exceed the amount covered. He therefore found it appropriate to increase the item to an amount commensurate with the magnitude of the physical damage proved.
Regarding interest, the court explained that the compensation must be updated to its value after the date of judgment, first applying an interest rate of 6% up to that point and then applying the highest passive interest rate set by the Banco de la Provincial de Buenos Aires in force at the time of actual payment.
The resolution reversed portions of the original sentence and increased the sentence as follows: $10,200,000. The litigation costs were borne by the defendant. The judge based his decision on civil law, particularly provisions regarding medical liability and comprehensive compensation.
About The Author
