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
Have the hospital owner and the patient (here: the mother of the minor
Patients) the common idea that a statutory health insurance
insisting on the costs of hospitalization,
and if this turns out to be a mistake, then that is missing between the
Hospital bearer and the patient (here the mother of the minor
Patients) closed the contract of employment.
The adjustment made in the absence of the business basis of the
the hospital owner and the patient (here: the patient's mother)
Closed treatment contract causes the hospital operator
the remuneration to be determined in accordance with §§ 10 ff BPflV for the
general hospital services of the patient (here: the mother
of the patient).
BGH, judgment of the 28. April 2005 - III ZR 351 / 04 - OLG Koblenz
a) In Arzthaftungssachen kann ein Verstoß gegen das verfassungsmäßige Ver-bot einer “Überbeschleunigung” insbesondere dann vorliegen, wenn das als verspätet zurückgewiesene Verteidigungsvorbringen ein – in der Regel schriftliches – Sachverständigengutachten veranlasst hätte, dieses Sachverständigengutachten aber in der Zeit zwischen dem Ende der Einspruchsbe-gründungsfrist und der darauf folgenden mündlichen Verhandlung ohnehin nicht hätte eingeholt werden können.
b) Verteidigungsmittel sind in der Regel nicht “nach Ablauf einer hierfür gesetz-ten Frist” (§ 296 Abs. 1 ZPO) vorgebracht, wenn das Gericht nach Ablauf der gemäß § 276 Abs. 1 Satz 2 ZPO gesetzten (und verlängerten) Klageerwide-rungsfrist dem Beklagten ohne Fristsetzung nochmals Gelegenheit zur Kla-geerwiderung gibt.
BGH, judgment of the 3. July 2012 - VI ZR 120 / 11 - OLG Karlsruhe
ZPO § 296 Abs. 1, § 340 Abs. 3 Satz 3 Continue reading
The need for patient information from a surgeon about his or her intention to use an outsider method in a follow-up treatment that may become necessary due to the realization of a risk typically associated with initial surgery.
BGH, judgment of the 22. December 2010 - 3 StR 239 / 10 - LG Moenchengladbach
StGB § 223 para. 1, § 224 para. 1 Nr. 2, § 228 Continue reading
A presumption of limitation according to § 199 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BGB setting in running grossly negligent ignorance is not given in cases of recourse, if the employees of the performance department of the insurance of the injured party in a division of labor no initiatives to investigate the damage unfold and therefore the claim the employees of the Regressab-Division did not become aware.
BGH, judgment of the 28. February 2012 - VI ZR 9 / 11 - KG Berlin
LG Berlin Continue reading
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
If the attending physician commissions an external laboratory doctor on behalf of his private patient with a non-required human genetic blood test, the laboratory doctor is not entitled to any compensation against the patient.
If the attending physician commissions an external laboratory doctor in the name of his private patient with a human blood test, which is objectively not necessary for a medically necessary medical care within the meaning of § 1 para. 2 sentence 1 GOÄ, then the laboratory doctor will not be entitled to claim remuneration from the patient if the laboratory doctor fulfilled the assignment assigned to him without errors and on the basis of his knowledge had no reason to doubt the necessity of the examination.
BGH, judgment of the 14. January 2010 - III ZR 188 / 09 - Brandenburg OLG
GOÄ § 1 para. 2 sentence 1 Continue reading
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.