In the case of medical liability matters, the prohibition of over-acceleration applies equally to an expert's report

(a) in the case of a medical offense, there may be a breach of the constitutional prohibition of "over-acceleration" in particular if the defense allegedly rejected as late would have prompted an expert's opinion, which was generally written, but in the period between the end of the opposition anyway, could not have been obtained anyway.

b) Defensive means are generally not filed "after expiry of a period set for this purpose" (§ 296 para. 1 ZPO), if the court after the expiry of the (according to § 276 para. 1 sentence 2 ZPO set (and extended) Anwerwide- give the defendant an opportunity to reply to the complaint without setting a time-limit.
BGH, judgment of the 3. July 2012 - VI ZR 120 / 11 - OLG Karlsruhe

ZPO § 296 Abs. 1, § 340 Abs. 3 Satz 3 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

GTranslate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!