a) A duty to inform the doctor exists only with respect to those risks that are already known at the time of treatment.
b) The appellant, who triumphs in the first instance, may rely not only on timely notification that, and for what reasons, the Appeals Tribunal does not wish to follow the appraisal of the lower court, but also to obtain an opportunity to supplement his case-statement effectively or to take further evidence.
c) § 531 para. 2 sentence 1 No. 1 ZPO presupposes that the legal opinion of the court has influenced the first-instance substantive submissions of the party and has therefore become (co-) the reason for the fact that party submissions have been postponed to appeal proceedings. However, this is already to be assumed if the court of the first instance, had it shared the later considered correct by the Court of Appeal, had been obliged to make a reference under Section 139 para. 2 ZPO.
BGH DECISION VI ZR 370 / 17 of 29. May 2018
BGB § 280, § 823 Abs. 1 Aa, I; GG Art. 103 Abs. 1; ZPO § 531 Abs. 2 Continue reading
A patient can demand from the treating hospital - against reimbursement of costs - without further ado the publication of all treatment documents. However, the name and address of the doctors involved in their treatment must be reported to the hospital only if the patient demonstrates a legitimate interest in the data. That's what the 26 has. Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm decided on 14.07.2017, thus confirming the first-instance judgment of the Landgericht Bochum by the 27.07.2016 (Az. 6 O 9 / 16 LG Bochum). Continue reading
Also, when a veterinarian treats an animal, a gross maladministration capable of causing harm of the kind actually encountered regularly results in the reversal of the objective burden of proof on the causal link between the treatment error and the damage to health.
BGH JUDGMENT VI ZR 247 / 15 of 10. May 2016
BGB § 823 I Continue reading
The plaintiff, who has been hospitalized in the defendant's facility, claims damages for these and two doctors employed by her. Initially, one of the doctors could not file the lawsuit under the clinic's name because the plaintiff's representative had not given the name correctly. After correcting the name, the delivery was successful. Nevertheless, the plaintiff requested information from the clinic about the private address of the doctor concerned. This was rejected by the defendant.
The district court dismissed the action. The district court has condemned the defendant for information, because anonymity is not compatible with the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. It allowed the revision. Continue reading
The burden of proof for a violation of the obligation to inform a re-pregnancy has the patient. It must therefore be certain that the reference to the failure rate has been omitted.
OLG Hamm 26 U 112 / 13 vom 17.06.2014 - Information on the possibility of pregnancy despite sterilization Continue reading
The plaintiff suffered severe damage to his health in connection with his birth. Therefore, he claimed the treating gynecologist, the midwife, a pediatric nurse and the carrier of the document hospital for damages.
In the first part of the proceedings, the grounds for the claim were a final verdict of the Oberlandesgericht. It found that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for all damages incurred by the plaintiff "on the occasion of and in response to the defendant's treatment after birth". The present part of the proceedings concerned the amount of the damages due to the applicant. In that regard, the Oberlandesgericht has ruled that a binding effect resulted from the previous basic judgment in that the defendants were liable only for the damages incurred by the claimant after his birth. In that regard, the amount of damages caused by the defendant must be limited to a maximum of 20%. Continue reading
A dentist should fully educate a patient about prosthetic restoration using single crowns or interlocking if both treatments are medically equally indicated and commonplace and have substantially different risks and chances of success so that the patient has a real choice.
Higher Regional Court Hamm, 26 U 54 / 13 of the 17.12.2013