The duty to inform the doctor exists only with respect to those risks that are already known at the time of treatment.

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

Treatment error of a veterinarian

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

Burden of proof for a breach of the obligation to inform a re-pregnancy

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

Liability for a partly fateful, partly caused by treatment error health damage on the occasion of a birth

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.

Im ersten Teil des Verfahrens erging zum Anspruchsgrund ein rechtskräftiges Grund- und Teilendurteil des Oberlandesgerichts. In diesem wurde festgestellt, dass die Beklagten als Gesamtschuldner verpflichtet sind, dem Kläger sämtliche Schäden zu ersetzen, die dem Kläger “anlässlich und aufgrund der Behandlung durch die Beklagten nach seiner Geburt” entstanden sind und noch entstehen werden. Im vorliegenden Verfahrensabschnitt ging es um die Höhe des dem Kläger zustehenden Schadensersatzes. Das Oberlandesgericht hat insoweit entschieden, dass sich aus dem vorangegangenen Grundurteil eine Bindungswirkung dahin ergebe, dass die Beklagten nur für die Schäden hafteten, die dem Kläger nach seiner Geburt entstanden seien. Insoweit sei der von den Beklagten verursachte Schadensanteil auf höchstens 20 % zu begrenzen. Continue reading

Dentist has a patient about a prosthetic restoration by means of single crowns or a blockage completely clear

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

§§ 823, 253, 249ff BGB Continue reading

Preservation of the patient's right to self-determination

Maintaining the patient's right to self-determination requires information about an alternative treatment option if several equally-valued treatment options are available for medically meaningful and indicated therapy

The appellate court correctly confirmed that the defendant had an obligation to provide information that two treatment alternatives were available, one of which was a new-country procedure at that time. According to the case law of the cognitive Senate, the choice of the treatment method is primarily the responsibility of the physician (Senate judgments BGHZ 102, 17, 22, 106, 153, 157, of the 11 May 1982 - VI ZR 171 / 80 - VersR 1982, 771, 772, 24, No-vember 1987 - VI ZR 65 / 87 - VersR 1988, 190, 191, and 15 March 2005 - VI ZR 313 / 03 - VersR 2005, 836; OLG two-bridges, OLGR 2001, 79, 81 with Senate decision of 19 December 2000 - VI ZR 171 / 00 - OLG Karlsruhe, MedR 2003, 229, 230).

The preservation of the patient's right to self-determination requires, however, information about an alternative treatment option if several equivalent treatment options are available for medically meaningful and indicated therapy, which lead to different strains on the patient or offer different risks and chances of success (Senate judgments BGHZ 102, 17 , 22; 106, 153, 157; of the 14 September 2004 - VI ZR 186 / 03 - VersR 2005, 227; of the 15 March 2005 - VI ZR 313 / 03 - aaO; Katzenmeier, Arzstaftung, 2002, S. 331 f ; MünchKommBGB / Wagner, 4., Ed., § 823 Rn. 707 f .; Staudinger / Hager, BGB, 13. Editing [1999], § 823, Rn. I 92 mwN).

Dass danach im Streitfall die Pflicht zur Aufklärung über die alternativen Möglichkeiten der manuellen bzw. computergestützten Operation bestand, hat das Berufungsgericht ohne Rechts-fehler bejaht. Auch die Feststellung des Berufungsgerichts, die Klägerin sei über die damals bekannten Vor- und Nachteile der Behandlungsmethoden ordnungsgemäß aufgeklärt worden, ist aus revisionsrechtlicher Sicht nicht zu beanstanden, insbesondere unter Berücksichtigung dessen, dass der Patient auch bei Anwendung einer neuen Behandlungsmethode wie sonst nur “im großen und ganzen” über Chancen und Risiken der Behandlung aufgeklärt werden muss (ständige Rechtsprechung, vgl. Senatsurteile BGHZ 90, 103, 106; 144, 1, 7 und vom 7. April 1992 – VI ZR 192/91 – VersR 1992, 960, 961).

Insofar as the appeal raises procedural complaints against the findings on the extent of the information provided, the Senate has examined these and found them to be inconsistent (§ 564 ZPO). Nevertheless, the information given to the patient was not sufficient in every respect. Continue reading

Single judge decision in medical liability cases does not constitute a violation of the statutory judge

a) According to § 538 para. 1 ZPO, the Appeals Tribunal must in principle gather the necessary evidence and decide on the case itself. Whether or not the proceedings in the first instance suffer from a material defect which exceptionally allows a remittal to the first instance court under Paragraph 538 2 No. 1 ZPO is to be judged solely on the basis of the substantive legal position of the court of first instance ,

b) If the business allocation plan does not provide for any special jurisdiction of a Civil Chamber according to § 348 para. 1 no. 2 e. ZPO, a decision by the single judge is not due to the fact that doctor-liability matters are in principle of the full staff have been a violation of the right to the statutory judge.

BGH JUDGMENT VI ZR 325 / 11 of 14. May 2013

XPO § 141 para 1, § 448, § 348 para. 1 letter e, § 538 para. 1, para. 2 sentence 1 no. 1, GC Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 Continue reading

Obligation of the physician for the consequences of a second intervention by a post-doctor

Obligation of the physician to accept the consequences of a second intervention by a post-treatment physician, which is required because the pretreating physician has undergone a treatment error during the first intervention.

BGH, judgment of the 22. May 2012 - VI ZR 157 / 11 - OLG Munich
LG Munich I

BGB § 823 Abs. 1 F, § 249 Ba
Continue reading

Inspection of the treatment documents by the trial lawyers in medical liability proceedings

The original documents filed by the parties pursuant to § 134 ZPO or by third parties pursuant to § 142 para. 1 ZPO are not part of the court records. A claim for access to the file or the issue of copies does not follow directly from § 299 ZPO. For documents that are directly from the court gem. § 142 ZPO be requested from third parties, there is a claim to the production of photocopies but both from the provisions of §§ 131, 133 ZPO and an analogous application of § 299 ZPO in compliance with the principle of legal hearing acc. Art. 103 para. 1 GG.

§ 299 ZPO does not expressly provide for a transmission of the case files to the representatives of the parties. However, the shipment may be made in due discretion if the files are expendable and the recipient is trustworthy. The decision must respect the principle of the right to be heard.

The same applies to the documents and documents filed by the parties or pursuant to § 142 ZPO if the person between whom and the court established the custody relationship agrees to a transmission of the files to the authorized representatives of the parties. Before the court refuses to send it, it must first ask the third party whether they agree to a transmission of the documents to the representatives of both parties.

Continue reading

G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!