Madrid, June 15 (EFE).- The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has condemned the Madrid Health Service and a company to compensate a woman with 300,000 euros for medical negligence, due to a delay in diagnosis and treatment. when he had an intestinal obstruction that led to septic shock.
The lawsuit explains that the patient, 68 years old, suffered from an intestinal obstruction secondary to a femoral hernia that developed after three visits to the Emergency Service of the Rey Juan Carlos de Móstoles Hospital between March and April 2019, without the application of diagnostic means. within reach and with an excessive delay in the application of the treatment of more than 6 days.
This led to a complication with perforation with fecaloid peritonitis and septic shock (generalized infection), currently causing serious physical and neurological sequelae, with a disability of 68%.
The family, represented by the lawyer Fabián Carosso, rejected the compensation of 135,408 euros because they considered that the assessment of the damage recognized at the administrative headquarters was “incomplete and deviated from reality.”
For this reason, he presented a contentious administrative appeal for financial liability for “the abnormal functioning” of public health services, in which he claimed 692,495 euros, an amount that the Community of Madrid considered excessive.
And now the TSJ of Madrid partially estimates the demand of the Carosso lawyers firm, specialized in medical negligence, by increasing the compensation for the proven damages up to 300,000 euros that SERMAS and the company IDC Salud Móstoles must face.
The ruling, to which EFE has had access, indicates that “it is unquestionable that there has been a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of an incarcerated femoral hernia, which has caused a perforation of the small intestine and fecaloid peritonitis, which has conditioned the severity of the clinical picture, complicating treatment and probably prolonging the patient’s recovery.
Said resolution does not apply the doctrine of loss of opportunity, since “the malpractice recognized by the administration is proven in light of the evidence” based on the expert reports provided, which conclude that the delay in the diagnosis and treatment of the hernia was the direct cause of the serious complications suffered by the patient.
Loss of opportunity generally applies when it cannot be directly and clearly shown that medical malpractice caused the specific harm, but rather there is a possibility that the harm would have occurred anyway, albeit minor, but in this case, The magistrates do observe a causal relationship between the malpractice and the damages suffered by the patient. EFE
rma/jdm
