[ad_1]
As the court reported on Friday, the woman’s relatives stated that the doctors at the Šilutė Hospital did not provide adequate, high-quality and qualified assistance, did not make a diagnosis in time, as a result of which the patient was discharged from the hospital. hospital prematurely.
The hospital did not agree with the lawsuit, claiming that the patient had been given the necessary help based on his condition at the time of referral to the hospital, that there was no illegal medical action, all necessary examinations had been carried out and that the patient had been discharged the same day.
The district court, which examined the case, determined that the patient arrived at Šilutė Hospital for the first time on the night of October 31, 2017 due to deteriorating health. D. prescribed tests, medications, and discharged the patient late at night.
The patient arrived at Šilutė Hospital for the second time on the morning of November 2 of the same year, but there is no record in the file that the doctor on duty at that time, VM, had provided the patient with medical care services.
Later that morning, the patient was admitted by the AMK doctor, they gave her tests, medication and indicated that the patient’s condition was satisfactory, she was discharged to her home that morning, and at night the woman died of a myocardial infarction.
After evaluating the facts of the case, the court concluded that the three doctors had committed illegal acts that resulted in the death of the patient. Doctor Ž. D. incompletely compiled the patient’s medical history, underestimated pain intensity, and prematurely discharged the patient home, recommending aspirin. The doctor VM, who was going to work during the patient’s second hospitalization, did not provide the necessary medical attention. During AMK’s second visit to the hospital, the doctor incompletely collected a medical history, ordered a blood test too late, underestimated the importance of testing, selected an inappropriate treatment, and provided inappropriate recommendations for further treatment – and did not did.
The court found that the three plaintiffs, the husband and two children of the deceased, were entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damages, although the hospital representatives stated that the children of the deceased patient were already adults and, therefore, not they were entitled to compensation for moral damages due to deprivation of life by law. However, the court determined that adult children are also entitled to non-pecuniary compensation for deprivation of life, regardless of their ability to work, if the relationship with the deceased was relatively close and close.
The court awarded the patient’s spouse all of the 30,000 requested. moral damage and stated that the relationship between the spouses was close, close, respectful, exclusive and irreplaceable, they had lived in marriage for 32 years, the applicant was well aware of the nature of her illness, moral damage.
The court sentenced the children of the deceased to 5,000. Indicating that they no longer lived with their mother, their emotional connection was not very strong. The deceased son and daughter asked to be sentenced to 20,000 each. euros.
The plaintiff also received monetary damages of EUR 2,750 for the death of the grave.
This decision can be appealed.
[ad_2]
