Medical error or complication? The Supreme Court has clarified how a doctor's liability is assessed
In society, when disputes arise in the field of health care, there is a widespread belief that an undesirable outcome for a patient's health automatically means a medical error — however, the fact that a medical intervention ended with an undesirable result does not always entail legal liability for the doctor.
A doctor's liability must be assessed primarily on the basis of whether the medical intervention was carried out in accordance with the existing indications, whether the diagnosis was correctly established, whether the treatment approach meets medical standards, and how professionally the procedure itself was performed. The mere fact that certain complications subsequently arose in the patient does not confirm the doctor's fault.
That is, in medical disputes the court assesses not only the result, but also the correctness of the very process that led to that result. If the doctor correctly established the diagnosis on the basis of the examinations conducted, correctly chose the method of treatment, and performed the operation in accordance with medical standards, the occurrence of an undesirable outcome does not in itself indicate the existence of legal liability on the part of the doctor.
The resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court "On the Protection of Personal Rights" notes that if all procedures were carried out with due diligence and with the adoption of the necessary measures in accordance with the generally accepted principles of evidence-based medicine, liability for the harm caused is excluded. In this sense, it is recognized that a doctor who acted within the framework of medical standards and showed due care and attention does not bear legal liability for the undesirable result that arose.
It should be taken into account that the key evidence in medical disputes is precisely medical documentation. A medical institution must prove that its activities comply with the law and that the services provided comply with clinical protocols. Therefore, the patient's complaints, the examinations conducted, the diagnosis, the grounds for the operation, the surgical protocols, as well as informing the patient and obtaining his consent must be documented in full and in the proper manner. Omissions in documentation, even when the medical intervention was performed correctly, may subsequently create serious difficulties from the standpoint of proof.
In particular, the procedure of informing the patient about the upcoming operation and obtaining his consent must not be reduced to the formal signing of a document. The patient must be given an explanation, in a simple and understandable form, of the purpose of the planned operation, the possible risks, complications, and expected results, after which this process must be properly recorded in documentation. Such an approach serves both to protect the patient's rights and to prevent possible disputes in the future.
Thus, in order to reduce legal risks in the field of medical services, both doctors and hospitals must not limit themselves to providing quality medical care, but must also properly organize their activities from a legal point of view.
