BGH treatment must be based on the medical standard

Karlsruhe (jur). Doctors must adhere to the "medical standard" in their treatments. Therefore, a treatment error does not occur only when an omitted examination or treatment was "imperatively required", it is published in a decision published on Tuesday, February 9, 2016 by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe (Ref .: VI ZR 67 / 15).
Then a woman from Lower Saxony has the prospect of compensation for the death of her husband. After a back wall infarct on the heart of the man had received in 1995 a bypass. In 2003, a "moderate" insufficiency of two heart valves was diagnosed, but the man also suffered from several other illnesses, including hypertension, lipid metabolism disorders, chronic bronchitis, and liver damage.

Medical guidelines. Image: BillionPhotos.com - fotolia

In 2007, the man repeatedly sought his doctors because of various ailments. Twice water was sucked out of his lungs. Because of the suspicion of intestinal obstruction, the general practitioner admitted the man to a hospital on 14 March 2008. There he was first treated for antibiotics because of inflammation, in early April 2008, then his heart was examined. It turned out that the entrances to his bypass were blocked, so that a new operation was required here. The man was initially released home and visited on April 8, 2008 a corresponding specialist clinic. The planned operation did not happen there anymore: The man died on April 10, 2008.

His widow claims that the doctors had to do the cardiac catheterization much earlier. Instead of releasing him home again, her husband from the local hospital should have been referred immediately to the specialist clinic. A massively congested jugular vein early on had indicated problems with the heart valves.

The district court Stade and the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Celle rejected the lawsuit. The cardiac catheterization had not been "imperative" earlier. On the jammed neck vein of the private expert brought by the wife did not expressly referenced.

But there has been a corresponding indication of the applicant and her lawyer, stressed now the BGH. That would be enough, and the lower courts would have had to investigate. The woman does not have to prove her arguments in advance.

Moreover, "refraining from taking a medical procedure is not only a mistake in treatment if the measure was" absolutely necessary ", but already if its failure to comply with the existing medical standard at the time of treatment," is the second guiding principle of the Karlsruhe decision.

With its resolution of 22 December 2015, which was now published in writing, the BGH dismissed the dispute for re-examination to the OLG Celle. mwo / fle