A routine examination ended in an emergency operation for a woman from Carinthia. And for the doctor’s office responsible, there were legal repercussions: The patient sued for 20,000 euros. The reason: the patient had experienced complications during a colonoscopy. She had to be immediately transferred to the hospital because of “a perforation of the intestinal wall”. The woman underwent emergency surgery because of the perforated intestinal wall.
Long process
The subsequent compensation proceedings were primarily about the duty to inform. The patient criticized that she had not been properly informed. In a first trial at the Klagenfurt District Court, the woman was found to be in the right and was awarded compensation. But Fahrhad Paya, the lawyer for the doctor’s office, appealed against this. And with success: The verdict was overturned. In the second trial, the compensation claim was dismissed. This decision has now been confirmed by the appeal court. “The verdict is therefore legally binding. The doctor’s office properly informed the patient,” says lawyer Farhad Paya. The patient will not receive any compensation.
Complications are rare
A colonoscopy is an important preventive examination. During the procedure, it was determined that “complications occur very, very rarely.” In the case of the woman from Carinthia, the colonoscopy was medically necessary due to complaints. The examination was carried out properly and in accordance with all the rules of medical art. The woman had previously signed an information sheet.
criticism
The plaintiff’s lawyer, however, criticized the fact that the patient was informed by the assistant and not by a doctor. He says that a doctor should have conducted the briefing session. The court also believes that it is a “mistaken assumption” by those responsible in the doctor’s office that the duty to provide information can be transferred to the practice staff. But otherwise the question of whether information provided by an assistant is sufficient is not addressed in detail. In this specific case, this does not play a major role: the court assumed that there had been a briefing session with a doctor anyway. This is because the patient had been treated twice in the practice before the examination. “It was clear to the court that a doctor had spoken to the patient about the risks. From the judges’ point of view, there was therefore additional information provided by medical staff,” Paya summarizes.
The accusation of a lack of information was thus off the table.
