The Supreme court
Friday, 20. October 2006, 15:15:07
has reached a verdict.
The case is of a 59 y/o male with angina pectoris. In 2001 he had a cath done, during which the aorta was damaged. He developed a dissectional aneurysm and was operated one week later (by-pass no doubt, as he had triple-vessel disease, and probably the dissection was delt with also although the court papers doesn't specifically mention this).
Because of the dissection, the ECMO-cannula was placed in the radial artery. The patient developed a vascular injury here resulting in a thrombosis. This in turn has given him reduced strength in the hand.
So he reported the doctors who had saved his life to the no-fault compensation scheme - the NPE - to extort some money. They concluded that he had no claim. So he appealed, and was again rejected.
So he sued. In the lower court, he won; the goverment was ordered to give him compensation for the vascular injury and also to pay his legal costs.
The government appealed, in the upper court the decision was affirmed.
So the NPE appealed to the supreme court, and now the verdict is in; the plaintiff lost.
Or, translated (by me) into non-legal language:
All right, so maybe not all judges are assholes.
The case is of a 59 y/o male with angina pectoris. In 2001 he had a cath done, during which the aorta was damaged. He developed a dissectional aneurysm and was operated one week later (by-pass no doubt, as he had triple-vessel disease, and probably the dissection was delt with also although the court papers doesn't specifically mention this).
Because of the dissection, the ECMO-cannula was placed in the radial artery. The patient developed a vascular injury here resulting in a thrombosis. This in turn has given him reduced strength in the hand.
So he reported the doctors who had saved his life to the no-fault compensation scheme - the NPE - to extort some money. They concluded that he had no claim. So he appealed, and was again rejected.
So he sued. In the lower court, he won; the goverment was ordered to give him compensation for the vascular injury and also to pay his legal costs.
The government appealed, in the upper court the decision was affirmed.
So the NPE appealed to the supreme court, and now the verdict is in; the plaintiff lost.
Even though the injury gives the plaintiff severe difficulties, I can not see that the level of injury is so great that this by itself can warrant compensation, when the injury is compared to the life-saving treatment that the plaintiff received
Or, translated (by me) into non-legal language:
The doctors saved his life and he is complaining about a sore thumb. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
All right, so maybe not all judges are assholes.
WIDGETIZE