Rejection of an Appeal on Medical Malpractice
This is a judgment which, of course, supports our discussion on the interpretation of the facts referred to our High Court
First, we must consider that, and the reality is it is very difficult to knock down the well-founded judgments by the Supreme Court for, because we understand that of course in such matters, it is important to frame the practice of proof on a script concrete and logical, since in these instances could not return to play the same test (on appeal could only be made when assessing the evidence be irrational or arbitrary, not simply wrong). Therefore it is of vital importance to focus the facts towards a goal that, by its very nature is likely to undermine and negatively qualify the “lex artis ad hoc” with the doctors involved in the events. So therefore crucial contribution to good medical and expert reports which constitute a support with their own claims for damages (an aside: does not appear in the judgment the amount claimed) in the civil suit (against the insurance company) or respective administrative appeal filed against the defendants in this case: the Murcia Health Service and its insurer, Zurich Insurance PLC, Branch in Spain.
Second, the court analyzes each ground of appeal, almost repeatedly as does the Supreme Court ruling, on the following arguments, Counsel chosen by the undersigned, in the judgment itself to be:
1. It is established that the ultrasound for the second quarter of gestation Silvia was performed at week 24, so that is outside the legal time limit for abortion-before week 22.
2. The protocol used is that published in 1995 admitting the ultrasound entry level or level I, and only in doubtful cases diagnosed or suspected of a possible anomaly, referred to the pregnant woman to hospital for a more specialized ultrasound examination.
3. It is true that the court judgment regarded as established that ultrasound of the second quarter it was late, after the legal deadline for voluntary interruption of pregnancy and therefore out of the possibility that parents could assess before a diagnosis malformation made by the medical team, but then analyzes the probability of detection of malformations in the present case was filed and, considering the time when pregnancy developed -1998 -, the Protocol applies, the SEGO published in 1995, the circumstances of low-risk pregnant women, and no suspicion of any abnormality or malformation, and the results of ultrasound at 24 weeks can not be estimated that delay relevant to the effects of any loss of opportunity self-determination of the mother. As for the basic level of expertise of the sonographer or the judgment dutifully analyzes why the mother was considered the level for your situation, which did not require Level II, since there was no suspicion of abnormality or not it was a high pregnancy risk.
Continue reading