[Facts of the case].
On August 12, 2016, Ma's mother was waiting for labor in the provincial maternal and child hospital, and during the delivery process, due to the fault of the provincial maternal and child doctor's medical behavior, Ma was diagnosed with cerebral cerebral palsy in the second hospital of a university.
After trial, the court of first instance found that the provincial women and children should bear tort liability according to the proportion of 75% according to the degree of their fault, and Ma's follow-up expenses and nursing expenses will be claimed separately after they are actually incurred.
On February 12, 2019, Ma was admitted to the Second Hospital of a university for "poor limb movement and slurred speech for more than 1 year", and was discharged from the hospital on February 19, 2019, and was diagnosed with cerebral cerebral palsy.
On April 10, 2019, Ma was admitted to the Second Hospital of a university again.
On July 17, 2019, Ma was admitted to the Second Hospital of a university again.
.Hou Ma was treated in the second hospital of a university many times
On May 22, 2020, Ma applied for an appraisal by a forensic medical appraisal institute. The center issued a judicial appraisal opinion: the degree of nursing dependence of the appraised person Ma was assessed as complete nursing dependence.
The patient believes that the first instance erred in not supporting the calculation standards for pre-disability nursing expenses, post-disability nursing dependency expenses, transportation expenses, disability appliance fees, photocopying fees, and lawyer's fees.
The doctor believes that the patient's identification procedure is illegal and the facts are wrong. In the first instance, it was determined that Ma's follow-up expenses and nursing expenses were to be claimed separately after they were actually incurred, and the judgment did not include ** expenses;It was not determined and judged that Ma needed to continue, and the continuation of this lawsuit was a duplicate lawsuit and should be dismissedThe original judgment's statement that "the follow-up expenses and nursing expenses requested by Ma are claimed after they are actually incurred" is not a definitive determination, but the actual expenses incurred after the necessity of ***. Therefore, this case should be subject to judicial appraisal of the necessity of the ***, and Ma bears the burden of proof, and the evidence cannot bear the consequences.
The court held that although the Provincial Women and Children believed that the above-mentioned appraisal opinion lacked scientific basis, it failed to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. The provincial women and children also did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the appraisal opinion in this case was inconsistent with the facts and violated the provisions of the law, and should bear the adverse consequences of failing to present evidence, and there was nothing illegal in the first-instance appraisal procedure, and the appraisal opinion could be used as the basis for the verdict of this case. According to Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, the compensation rights holder may sue separately for the necessary expenses for organ function recovery training, appropriate cosmetic surgery fees and other follow-up expenses. It is necessary and necessary for Ma to carry out **functional exercise and ***, and his claim that the *** fee is in accordance with the law, and it is not improper to support his ** fee in the first instance.
Judicial Judgment] The defendant hospital shall compensate Ma for medical expenses, ** fees, nutrition expenses, in-hospital meal subsidies, nursing expenses, disability equipment and nursing supplies, transportation and accommodation expenses, appraisal fees, photocopying fees, and lawyer's fees totaling 835,340 within 10 days of the effective date of this judgment63 yuan.
Medical law knowledge] What is the follow-up fee?
The so-called follow-up fee refers to the cost of the second time if the physical signs are fixed after the injury and the residual dysfunction really needs to be re-injured or the injury has not yet recovered. A large number of cases in practice have proved that even if the victim has been discharged from the hospital, it is not the same as "completely" many victims do need to undergo a second operation after half a year, a year or even longer. At the same time, with only one year of statute of limitations, victims are in a dilemma of claiming compensation.
In accordance with the provisions of the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the trial of personal injury compensation, the person entitled to compensation may file a separate lawsuit after the actual occurrence of the subsequent expenses.
I hope to provide a little advice and help to everyone on the road to defend their rights, if you need a professional medical lawyer, you can also contact us directly by private message!