Haftung nach Wirbelkörperversteifung.

The article is about a liability case following a vertebral fusion. A patient is suing doctors for compensation for pain and suffering, as well as the determination of liability for material and immaterial damages due to alleged faulty information and treatment. The court ruled that the general practitioner shares responsibility and awarded the patient compensation for pain and suffering. The plaintiff claims that she was treated incorrectly and inadequately informed. However, the court dismissed the lawsuit as it could not be proven that the plaintiff was treated incorrectly. However, the defendants are jointly liable to pay compensation for pain and damages, as the procedures were performed without effective consent. The present text deals with the evaluation of evidence in the context of a court proceeding. It emphasizes that the patient has the right to self-determination and that the medical professionals did not sufficiently enable her to make decisions. The plaintiff plausibly argued that she was in a conflict of decision and was unsure if she would have chosen the surgeries. The court found that the plaintiff was obviously unprepared for the questions of the court and made a serious effort to reconstruct whether she would have opted for the procedure. The lack of information and consent is causally related to the pain and impairments suffered. The court considers a compensation of €50,000 as appropriate. The plaintiff has the right to receive compensation for pain and suffering and the determination of claims for damages. The article states that the dispute over the effectiveness of a settlement agreement must be resolved by continuing the old proceedings. If the result shows that the settlement is valid, the legal dispute will be declared resolved. The burden of proof lies with the party claiming that the settlement did not end the legal dispute. In this case, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.

LEGAL settlement; BURDEN of proof; DISMISSAL & nonsuit; LEGAL judgments; GENERAL practitioners

GesR: Gesundheitsrecht, 2024, Vol 23, Issue 8, p502

1610-1197

Academic Journal

10.9785/gesr-2024-230812