In a recent ruling, a civil court in the province of Buenos Aires ordered payment Compensation of more than 26 million pesos to a man who suffered loss of function in a finger after a series of failed medical treatments. The claim concerned both the clinic and the medical care and the doctor who treated him, as it was considered that there was a breach of his duty to ensure safety and the correct provision of healthcare services.
The plaintiff, 32 years old and a customer service employee, argued that the injury occurred during football training when he was a goalkeeper for a local club and that from that moment he was no longer able to save in the institution. The incident occurred in September 2017 when he received a blow on the ring finger of his right hand. Despite persistent pain and swelling, initial medical care from the clinic only included a frontal x-ray and an indication for the use of a digital immobilizer, which was not available in the country.
From this first consultation, the patient continued to experience significant discomfort and sought a second medical opinion days later without registering any improvement. According to the story in the file, this second treatment also did not result in a proper diagnosis or treatment of his dislocation and fracture. After a month, a specialist ordered a profile X-ray, after which the persistence of the dislocation and the presence of a fracture were confirmed. The plaintiff ultimately had to undergo surgery followed by rehabilitation.
The lawsuit, filed in September 2018, sought compensation for the physical disability incurred, medical and pharmacological costs, transfers, psychological care, moral damage and loss of opportunities due to the impossibility of resuming his sporting activity and the difficulties in carrying out his usual employment. The amount requested was initially 830,000 pesos, although the court set a significantly higher amount given the medical and psychological evidence presented.
The judgment considered that the case falls within the scope of consumer relations and the applied consumer protection rules, with the interpretation most favorable to the user of health services. The court ruled that providers, including the medical center and health insurers, assume an implied obligation of safety to those they serve and cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for defective services.
The main argument highlighted was that a healthcare facility can only be exempted from liability if it has to prove an external reason, such as a fortuitous event, the fault of the victim himself or the absence of negligence in his actions. After analyzing the official medical report, the court came to the conclusion that the initial care was inadequate against this background The complete examinations recommended in professional practice were not carried out and an accurate diagnosis was missing. This would allow for immediate correction of the injury.
The expert reports collected in the court file revealed partial and permanent physical disability of 8% of the right hand and psychological damage diagnosed as mild major depressive disorder, with an estimated disability of 15%. The medical expert explained that the correct diagnosis required a frontal and profile radiograph and that specifying a single radiograph influenced the diagnostic delay.. Furthermore, it was noted that the patient did not discontinue treatment and continued to seek alternatives for his rehabilitation.
Both the medical provider and the healthcare facility argued that the patient did not follow subsequent instructions or attend outpatient consultations. The expert and the court did not consider it to be proven that there was a refusal to continue treatment. According to the decision, the decisive factor for the assessment of evidence was the defendant’s lack of sufficient cooperation to fully clarify the facts.
The judge explained that medical services fall under the Consumer Protection Act, which imposes objective obligations regarding the quality of care and appropriate care. It was also highlighted that in consumer relationships where health is at stake, the principles of dignified treatment and protection of consumers must be directly applied.
As for the amount of damages, the amount awarded included 13,350,000 pesos for the disability incurred, 250,000 pesos for medical and transport costs, 2,880,000 pesos for payment of the necessary psychological treatment and 6,540,000 pesos for moral damage. The point of loss of opportunity was rejected because there was neither evidence of the existence of income from the sporting activities carried out by the plaintiff nor a concrete possibility of further professional development as a football player.
The judgment expressly rejected the objection that health insurance is exempt from liability for the conduct of professionals and pointed out that when selecting and commissioning a health sanatorium, the company must face the user as a guarantor of the health service offered.
The judgment ordered the payment of compensation at updated valuesin addition to interest from the date of the event, while declaring the unconstitutionality of the laws limiting the indexation of damages. The deadline for enforcing the sentence was set at ten calendar days, with the threat of legal consequences for non-compliance.
The process also involved medical and psychological experts who confirmed the presence of the reported sequelae and the need for medium-term treatment of the remaining psychological pathology. In addition to restrictions in the professional and social areas, the psychological report also found effects in the emotional, cognitive areas, controls and interpersonal relationships.
The judge built on the principle of comprehensive redress, enshrined in both local regulations and international treaties, and noted the centrality of the right to health in the Constitution and consumer protection law.
The court decision was also highlighted the patient’s particular vulnerability to medical providersthe information asymmetry in the relationship and the regulatory nature of the protective regulations. This criterion was reflected in the interpretation of the evidence and in the distribution of the burden of proof, which fell on the parties best placed to provide the relevant information.
It was found that the third-party professional, who did not respond to the lawsuit despite being notified, fell within the scope of the judgment and must jointly and severally pay the compensation with the other two convicted parties. The costs of the trial, including fees and expenses, were imposed on the convict.
About The Author
