[ad_1]
The case of the Belluno hospital. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the doctor did not wear a mask during the visits. 4 USL executives accused of forgery and complicity
BELLUNO. Otolaryngology visits without a mask. Thus, an outbreak of Covid-19 was unleashed in the San Martino di Belluno hospital. Last February, patients and doctors participated first, then the infection had also spread to people outside the healthcare sector.
The Public Ministry has opened an investigation, investigating the department head Roberto Bianchini for the hypothesis of an aggravated culpable epidemic crime. Raffaele Zanella (president), Antonella Fabbri, Cristina Bortoluzzi and Tiziana Bortot (members) of the Office of Disciplinary Procedures of the USL 1 Dolomiti, on the other hand, must answer for false material and ideological public act and aggravated personal complicity, because they would have helped to the doctor. To avoid investigations, after the medical director Giovanni Maria Pittoni and the director general Adriano Rasi Caldogno felt the need not only to initiate a disciplinary process against the suspect, but also to inform the judiciary.
During the investigation, at the end of June, the prosecutor, Paolo Luca, had requested the suspension of Bianchini from the public service of manager of the complex operative unit of Otorhinolaryngology and from the exercise of the medical profession; for Zanella the suspension from public office as head of the medical department of the health company; for Fabbri the suspension of the position of head of the General Affairs office. Three months for everyone. But the investigating judge of the Court of Belluno, Elisabetta Scolozzi, rejected the request with an order of July 24. The prosecutor appealed against her with an appeal to the Court of Review, which was in turn rejected. The reasons in 45 days, that is, before November 15, because it is an exceptional case. Bianchini allegedly violated the Code of Medical Deontology and the provisions of the competent authorities to combat the health emergency.
According to the reconstruction of the investigators, on February 25 the doctor had returned from a vacation in Thailand, returning immediately to the service without informing the Medical Directorate that he came from a country classified as epidemic risk by the World Health Organization. The doctor allegedly gave false information to the Public Health and Hygiene Service, saying that he did not frequent crowded places and did not take tourist tours, obtaining authorization to remain in service under deceit. He would not have informed anyone that he has symptoms compatible with Covid -19, as of March 3, thus avoiding the diagnostic test and continuing to work both in the hospital and in the profession until March 9, without quarantining himself. But above all, he would have made visits to specialists without wearing personal protective equipment, despite being in close contact with patients. Being positive, it would have caused an outbreak, directly infecting four people, who in turn transmitted the virus to about ten contacts. In the end, home surveillance was required for about 70 people and 106 hospital workers.
The case had reached the Office of Disciplinary Procedures, which had to assess Bianchini’s behavior. Zanella, Fabbri, Bortoluzzi and Bortot are accused of having written a report of the April 1 session with falsehoods: that is, that Bianchini returned on February 26 and not on February 25 and that the doctor had informed him on time who had returned from the East. However, it was not reported that the chief physician had not reported the onset of symptoms, that he had not self-isolated and that he did not wear the mask, except when operating. With this document and their conduct, also towards the judicial police, they would have helped Bianchini to evade the investigations of the Financial Police and the Prosecutor’s Office. For the last crime of complicity, the aggravating circumstance of having committed the act with abuse of power and violation of the duties inherent to a public function is disputed. The disputed period runs through April 28. It does not appear that there has been any disciplinary measure, because no elements of special importance have emerged. –
