Doctor must educate about rare surgical risks

Doctors also need to thoroughly educate about rare risks of surgery

22/09/2012

Now doctors are being held accountable. According to a decision of the Higher Regional Court (Koblenz) on Friday, doctors must inform their patients in detail about the rare risks of an intervention. Previously, a woman had sued, suffering from a dental treatment under permanent nerve damage.

Written information form is not sufficient as information about rare surgical risks
Doctors also need to provide their patients with detailed information about rare complications and risks prior to surgery. The written information form with a brief indication may not be sufficient to alert the patient to particularly serious risks. That decided the OLG Koblenz on Friday (Az .: 5 U 496/12).

This confirmed a civil senate the judgment of the district court Trier. According to this, a doctor has to pay his patient compensation in the amount of 7,000 euros. The woman had previously filed a lawsuit claiming that she had not been sufficiently informed about possible risks of dental surgery. There were no alternatives to the treatment explained by the doctor. In the routine use of dental implants, a nerve has been permanently damaged, so that the woman since then suffers pain while chewing.

The Koblenz Higher Regional Court upheld the woman and dismissed the appointment of the dentist. According to the judgment, he "failed to provide the evidence to him that he had fully and properly informed the applicant of all risks". The doctor, who had led the discussion with the patient, could no longer remember the concrete content of the conversation.

The judges considered the mere mention of "nerve damage" in a written disclosure form to be insufficient, unless additional detailed explanations were given on the risks in an interview.

If the reconnaissance talk is not understood, the patient must ask
As a decision of the OLG (file reference: 5 U 713/11) from November 2011 shows, a doctor is not liable if a patient has not understood the explanation.

A woman had sued her doctor for damages because she did not agree to her consent to an upcoming surgery. Her reasoning: She did not understand the explanation. However, the OLG ruled in favor of the doctor because the patient had the opportunity to ask or to ask for another interview. A doctor would not need to deepen the reconnaissance conversation without asking or requesting or performing it again. In the negotiated case, the doctor had no indication that the patient was overwhelmed with the conversation. (Ag)

Picture: Martin Büdenbender