[Facts of the case].
On the morning of January 19, 2018, the patient went to Health Station C for medical treatment due to a cold, and the doctor at the station prescribed the following drugs: azithromycin, paramethalmine, Biyuping, and Jingfang Granules.
The next day, Mr. A set off from the store to work, and at about 8:10, the patient's brother called ** and said that the patient had an accident, and when Mr. A went back, the patient would be out of breath.
On the second day of the incident, the patient's family went to the suburban and rural health center and asked to find out the cause of death, but the next day, the suburban and rural health center did not come to the person, and the patient's family entrusted the identification.
On March 10, 2018, after autopsy, the analysis of the cause of death of the patient was concluded: it was consistent with the death of suffocation by inhalation of foreign bodies in the trachea and lungs.
On May 11, 2018, the patient unilaterally entrusted the Y Judicial Appraisal Center to issue a judicial appraisal opinion, which held that the doctor did not have a detailed physical examination and medical history in the treatment of the patient, blindly used drugs, and did not use drugs to resist and prevent azithromycin when using obvious azithromycin, and there was a fault in the use of drugsThe patient had acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis before death, and pancreatic necrosis was the underlying cause of death;During hemorrhagic pancreatitis, drowsiness, fatigue, and vomit regurgitation into the trachea caused by nausea and vomiting and azithromycin*** are the direct causes of death. The doctor was clearly at fault in his medical treatment of the patient, and there was a causal relationship between the patient's death and the medical fault, and he should bear most of the responsibility for the event of death. Participation is 70% recommended.
On October 10, 2019, the affected party filed a lawsuit. The C health station proposed that the Y judicial appraisal center was unilaterally entrusted by the patient, and the appraisal results were inconsistent with the objective facts, so it applied for a new appraisal, and the court of first instance entrusted the S judicial appraisal center to conduct the appraisal, but the case was dismissed on the grounds that the materials submitted for inspection were incomplete. After carefully reviewing the subjective medical records related to the case and the histopathological sections sent for examination, the appraisers found that the causes of brain lesions such as "pale red effusion of subdural congestion", "cerebellar tonsillar herniation", and "attachment of coagulation clots at the base of the temporal lobe" seen in the course of forensic pathological examination were unknown, and could not be explained solely by pancreatic hemorrhagic necrosis, and the underlying cause of death was still unclear. It was decided not to admit the case.
The court of first instance held that the Judicial Appraisal Opinion issued by Y Judicial Appraisal Center ignored the urgency of the patient's condition and the limitations of the medical level of the rural health station. Combined with the results of the two re-appraisals commissioned by the court of first instance, the court of first instance did not accept the Judicial Appraisal Opinion issued by the Y Judicial Appraisal Center. In addition, even if the medicine prescribed by the doctor of the defendant health station for **cold caused vomiting***, it was due to the patient's own illness and no one took care of him, causing him to die of suffocation, and there was no legal causal relationship between his medical behavior and the patient's death.
The first-instance judgment rejected the patient's claim.
The patient was not satisfied, arguing that the original trial court erred in not accepting the appraisal opinion of Y appraisal agency, and that the appraisal conclusion produced by the unilateral commission should be adopted by reference on the basis of the facts verified by the court if the other party has no evidence to the contrary, and that the appellee is a regular medical institution, and should not distinguish between large hospitals and small clinics in terms of complying with medical technology routines.
The health station argued that the patient himself concealed his illness, the patient's characterization and self-report were all colds, and in the first instance, the patient also stated that his cold and the condition described to me were also symptoms of a cold, and if we conducted an in-depth examination on this, it would not be conducive to the optimal allocation of medical resources, and even if we were at fault, the drugs prescribed were not symptomatic, and the appraisal results entrusted by both parties were completely opposite to the appellant's unilateral appraisal results, which could overturn the appraisal results of the Y Judicial Appraisal Center, and in summary, the patient's death had nothing to do with the appellee。
The court of second instance held that in the absence of other evidence to the contrary to overturn the Judicial Appraisal Opinion adduced by the Appellant, it was inappropriate to reject the Judicial Appraisal Opinion already made by Y Judicial Appraisal Center only on the grounds that H Judicial Appraisal Institute was not admissible. Secondly, hemorrhagic pancreatic disease is a common disease, and the licensed physician should be able to make a judgment on this and give reasonable medical advice or **, and require the licensed physician of the health center to fulfill this duty of care, which does not exceed the local medical professional level, therefore, the court of second instance affirmed the "Judicial Appraisal Opinion" of the Y Judicial Appraisal Center, and the defendant C Health Station bears 70% of the compensation liability.
Judicial Judgment] The second instance revokes the civil judgment of the court of first instance;The judgment was changed to the defendant's health station to compensate the affected party for various economic losses totaling 556451 within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment35 yuan.
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!