Medical liability cases are difficult and therefore often take a long time. In the nearly thirty years that I have been associated with Beer advocaten, I have dealt with many of them. In doing so, the first piece of advice to my clients is to have a long breath, because usually the one who has it also draws the longest straw.
Personal injury after medical procedure
Unfortunately, this was not true for a client just nineteen years old who came to the oncologic surgeon with a suspicious spot in her jaw in 2009. He doubted the diagnosis: was it a condition that required no treatment or would it be that tumor that required the removal of half the upper jaw? He consulted a reputable committee that provides advice to the attending physician in such cases. This committee informed him that although the radiological result indicated the benign variant, the removal (resection) was advised, because the pathological result could fit the malignant variant. So it happened and my client now walks around with a so-called bobbin prosthesis in the upper jaw.
After the surgery, the material that had been removed was again presented to this committee: this time the radiologists and pathologists were in agreement: it turned out to be the benign condition after all. This means that for over sixty years my client has had to walk around unjustly with a partial jaw prosthesis. Without a prosthesis, she cannot talk, eat and drink, and the prosthesis requires daily maintenance.
Compensation
The client sought compensation for the personal injury she suffered as a result of the wrongful partial removal of the upper jaw.
In response, the surgeon argued that he was entitled to rely on the committee's advice. For its part, the committee took the view that it was not to blame and that the surgeon had a responsibility of his own, even when he received an opinion from the committee. The case and the wall.
Expert medical examination
Client had to present her claim for damages to the court. Unfortunately, the oncological surgeon's position was endorsed by the medical expert hired by the court. Then it is difficult to be vindicated in court.
Because the committee had not taken minutes of the meeting at which the recommendation was arrived at, the expert could not form an opinion as to why the recommendation for resection had been arrived at. On behalf of the client, it was argued in court that it had been wrong to advise resection in view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the radiological diagnosis was much more certain than the pathological diagnosis, the rather different treatments, the client's age, and the fact that even the malignant variant did not need to be treated with the greatest urgency and further examination was possible. The committee believed that it had adhered to its own guideline, which is sec that the pathological diagnosis is preferred. The court went along with this, in the sense that it found it correct that the committee had followed this guideline. The ruling was published at jurisprudence.com.
Lock
The existence of this type of advisory committee is important because it is obviously nice to have a second opinion from competent medical specialists. What is clear, however, is that opinions from such committees can undermine the patient's legal position, especially as long as it is not documented, and apparently need not be, how an opinion was arrived at.
If you have questions about this blog, please contact the author, Mirella Hartman.