[Facts of the case].
Ms. L was hospitalized from 28 September 2014 to H for a lump in her neck** and was diagnosed with right-sided nodular goiter.
The next day, Ms. L underwent bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy in Hospital H, and after the operation, Ms. L developed hypocalcemia symptoms such as facial paralysis, paralysis and convulsions of limbs.
On 8 October 2014, Ms. L was discharged from the hospital. Subsequently, Ms. L went to various hospitals for outpatient visits** from 21 October 2014 to June 2020.
On December 12, 2014, Hospital D diagnosed Ms. L's outpatient hypoparathyroidism after thyroid surgery, and the results of the examination of Ms. L's thyroid gland and thyroid gland and parathyroid hormone and function were lower than the normal range after examination by the other hospitals.
Litigation process] The two parties jointly commissioned the appraisal of medical damages, and the appraisal opinion was: Hospital H had medical negligence in the medical activities of the patient, Ms. L, and there was a causal relationship between the medical negligence and the patient's personal injury, which constituted medical damage, and the doctor bore the main responsibility.
Subsequently, Ms. L commissioned an evaluation of the degree of disability and assessed it as a Grade 5 disability. In addition, he was entrusted to conduct a forensic medical evaluation of his working capacity and subsequent medical expenses, and it was found that he was in line with the total loss of working capacity.
The court of first instance held that, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the appraisal results determined by the relevant appraisal conclusions, in order to balance the interests of both parties, the court of first instance decided that Hospital H should bear 70% of the liability for compensation.
The court of second instance held that in the litigation, Hospital H failed to put forward a legal basis and legal reasons to initiate a re-appraisal, so it was not improper for Hospital H to adopt the relevant appraisal opinions based on the evidence of this case and determine that Hospital H should bear 70% of the responsibility for the damage caused by Ms. L's diagnosis and treatment.
Secondly, with regard to the question of whether the calculation of some of the compensation items and standards determined by the first-instance judgment was appropriate, Ms. L did not provide proof of her regular income in the litigation, nor did she provide her average income in the last three years. The mere fact that she lives in a city other than her place of residence is not enough to prove that she has income from work, that is, she cannot prove that Ms. L lost work due to this medical accident. Therefore, the first-instance judgment improperly calculated the compensation for lost time according to the standard of the average wage of employees in urban private units in the previous year, and this court corrected it.
Judicial Decision] The court of first instance ruled that Hospital H should compensate Ms. L 723818 within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment52 yuan.
The judgment of the second instance was modified: Hospital H compensated Ms. L for 704034 within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment95 yuan;
I hope to provide a little advice and help to everyone on the road to rights protection, if you need a professional medical lawyer, you can also contact us directly by private message! 2024 Travel Guide