Doctor may insist on inpatient treatment

A doctor may insist on inpatient treatment if subsequent care at home does not seem warranted

03/01/2012

According to a ruling at the district court in Munich, a treating physician can insist on a stationary further care in the hospital of the patient, if an adequate after-care in the own four walls does not appear to be guaranteed. If the person treated refuses, he has no claim for compensation for the loss of earnings due to missed working days.

If a doctor requires his patient to be followed-up at a clinic because medical care is not guaranteed at home, the patient is not entitled to compensation for missed working days if he refuses hospitalization. This was announced by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medizinrecht of the German Bar Association in Berlin. According to a judgment of the district court Munich with the file number 275 C 9085/11 this also applies, if before an outpatient therapy was agreed.

Plaintiff demanded compensation for loss of earnings
In this specific case, the plaintiff should undergo an outpatient surgery. For the procedure, the man had freed himself from his work for two days. A day before the operation, the doctor learned that continued care in the home environment is not guaranteed. Therefore, the doctor advised the plaintiff to have the surgery done inpatient. However, this did not meet the expectations of the man, which is why he left the clinic again, without having to undergo surgery. Some time later, the patient demanded from the physician 1200 Euro compensation for the loss of earnings. In support of the claim, the plaintiff alleged that he had taken an extra two days off from work and now needed financial compensation from the doctor for his independent activity in the services sector. The plaintiff stated that another employee had taken over the job, this has a gross wages hourly rate of 75 €. For two days, therefore, the demanded amount was incurred. The doctor refused to pay the estimated amount and referred to his duty of care. The patient filed a complaint with the local court. After all, the doctor had not followed the original treatment plan.

Doctor did not act contrary to the contract
But the judges did not consider the lawsuit lawful. It was unreasonable for the doctor to stick to the original treatment plan. Because a follow-up care was not guaranteed from the point of view of the doctor, he had rightly insisted on a stationary further care. After all, health risks would have arisen after such an operation, which is why the doctor had to ensure that sufficient care was also guaranteed in the patient's home. This applies in particular if anesthesia must be administered during the operation. According to the court, therefore, no patient can claim compensation for the loss of work. The doctor did not act contrary to the law by law. (Sb)

Also read:
Doctor is not liable for uncomprehending education
Barely useful additional services at the doctor