Lawyer for Medical Law & Medical Liability Law

Yes. As a patient you have a right to inspect the complete medical records and to receive copies against reimbursement of the copying costs. No reason has to be given. Request the documents in writing and expressly ask for operation reports, nursing documentation and findings as well – the file is the basis of every assessment.

The legal assessment begins with the medical records; the medical evaluation calls for specialist knowledge. The usual approach is therefore in two stages: first a review of the file and a plausibility check, then a specialist medical opinion. The Patientenanwaltschaften (patient ombudsman offices) and the arbitration boards of the Ärztekammern (medical chambers) also offer preliminary assessments free of charge.

In practice, hardly. Whether the treatment met the medical standard can only be judged by an expert from the same specialist field. In proceedings the court appoints an expert; a private opinion obtained beforehand helps to assess the prospects of success realistically before the costs of litigation arise.

A gap in the documentation does not in itself create a claim, but it improves your evidential position considerably. Doctors and hospitals are under a duty to document; where a step was not recorded, the court may assume that it did not take place. A gap in the evidence thus becomes a disadvantage for the treating side.

No. Without valid consent, even a procedure carried out impeccably from a medical point of view is unlawful. Information has to be given about the nature, extent, risks and alternatives of the treatment, and early enough to leave time for reflection. It is for the treating side to prove that proper information was given – not for you.

Yes, and it is more common than assumed. If a risk materialises about which no information was given, liability can arise even though the operation itself was carried out without fault. The objection that you would have consented even if fully informed is admissible – which is why it matters what alternatives there were.

Not every incorrect diagnosis is an error. Medicine works with probabilities, and a defensible diagnostic error gives rise to no liability. It becomes culpable where required findings were not obtained, clear warning signs were passed over, or obvious differential diagnoses were not investigated. What matters is the standard of the particular specialist field.

Yes. The operator of the hospital is liable for the fault of the doctors and nursing staff it engages to deliver your treatment. You therefore do not have to sue the treating doctor personally. With treatment by a doctor you chose privately or doctors who merely have admitting rights at the hospital the allocation may be different – that should be clarified in advance.

An infection alone is not enough, because germs cannot be avoided entirely even where hygiene is impeccable. Liability comes into consideration where hygiene rules were breached, sterilisation or isolation was omitted, or an infection was recognised and treated too late. Hygiene plans and protocols are the key documents here.

Yes. Schmerzengeld is due for physical and mental pain suffered and is assessed according to duration and intensity – the usual approach is a division into mild, moderate and severe periods of pain, which an expert determines. Lasting consequences and future pain have to be taken into account as well, so that they are not lost later.

All financial disadvantages are recoverable: costs of healing and treatment, travel costs, care and support, necessary aids and loss of earnings – where there are lasting consequences, and, where the consequences are permanent, as regular periodic payments. The expense of relatives who take on the care is in principle recoverable too. Collect receipts from the outset.

Yes. Claims for compensation become time-barred three years from the point at which you know of the damage and of the person who caused it – not necessarily from the treatment itself. There is a long-stop of thirty years from the harmful conduct. Because the start of the period is often disputed, limitation should be examined early and, if necessary, interrupted.

Yes, and a large proportion of cases end out of court. The liability insurers of hospitals regularly negotiate once a sound expert opinion is available. Before signing, check whether future late and lasting consequences are also meant to be settled – a full-and-final settlement clause cuts off later claims permanently.

Yes. For procedures that are not medically necessary, a particularly strict standard of information applies: risks, possible follow-up procedures and realistic results have to be explained in full. An aesthetic result that is merely unsatisfactory does not in itself give rise to liability – a failure to inform or a treatment error does.