Share:
Home emergency call must send in case of doubt medical help
If sick and needy people rely on the quick help of a home emergency call system, the home emergency call service provider must also act really fast in an emergency and in case of doubt, call an emergency medical service. If a person in need of assistance presses the emergency call button and then only hears him moan for a few minutes, the failure to communicate with qualified rescue services constitutes a gross violation of contractually granted protection obligations, the court of justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe ruled on Thursday, 11 May 2017 (Az .: III ZR 92/16).
The decisive lawsuit was a seriously ill 78-year-old man with care level 2. He lived alone in a flat in a retirement home. He suffered from numerous health conditions and diseases, including diabetes, respiratory distress, arrhythmia and high blood pressure. There was a greatly increased risk of stroke.
Picture: Kzenon - fotolia To continue to live alone in his apartment and to be able to receive help in a medical emergency, the man with the Johanniter accident help completed a home emergency call. An emergency call system was installed in the man's apartment. In an emergency, this can be activated by pressing a button. An employee in the emergency call center can then establish a contact. In case of emergency then a locksmith, the family doctor or even the rescue service should be informed as needed.
On April 9, 2012, the 78-year-old actually relied on urgent help and pressed the house emergency button. The employee in the center of the service heard only a groan for several minutes. When several phone calls to the man failed, one security guard and later another person were sent to the apartment.
They found the man lying on the floor, set him up, put him on a couch and then left him alone. The rescue service was not notified.
Relatives found the man on April 11, 2012. He was paralyzed on one side and had a speech disorder. The hospital was diagnosed with a stroke, probably one to three days ago.
The man said that the stroke episodes could have been avoided. The house call operator would simply have had to call the ambulance or other qualified medical personnel quickly. Here the employee of the security service was trained only in first aid.
Johanniter Unfallhilfe denied that she was responsible for the consequences of the stroke. She refused the required payment of damages and a compensation of at least 40,000 euros.
Since the man has died in the meantime, the daughters made further claims as heirs.
While the Regional Court and the Berlin Court of Appeal dismissed their claim, it now had success before the BGH. The home emergency call service had "grossly neglected" its contractually agreed duties of protection. Although the service was not responsible for the success of rescue operations, it was obliged to immediately provide adequate assistance.
This was omitted here. Johanniter Unfallhilfe even knew about the pre-existing conditions and the risk of stroke. When the employee at the central office answered the emergency call and heard the moaning for several minutes, he would have had to call for qualified medical help. However, this had been omitted and was grossly negligent.
Similar to the law on medical malpractice, such an action leads to a reversal of the burden of proof. The house emergency call service must then prove that the health damage would have occurred even if he had done everything right. Otherwise, the house emergency service must adhere. The Berlin Court of Appeals must now re-examine this. fle / mwo / fle