A multimorbid patient is suing his doctor for €50,000 because he is said to have made a “gross error in information”. However, the courts had little use for this term – and they did not see it as a treatment error.
Despite multiple previous illnesses, an alcohol-dependent 65-year-old patient does not see his family doctor for months. Not a good idea in his condition: He suffered, among other things, from congestive heart failure, gastrointestinal bleeding due to reflux esophagitis, high blood pressure and severe obesity. The other known diagnoses also included: Type 2 diabetes mellitus without medication and stage 3 chronic kidney failure. The man also has various ulcers and suffered from psoriasis.
In August, the patient was admitted to hospital with severe respiratory distress. A resident doctor took care of the post-inpatient treatment. He not only continued the internally recommended medication, but also prescribed ibuprofen to the patient because he was complaining of pain in his knee joints.
Many pre-existing conditions – many subsequent problems
During the treatment period, regular wound visits were carried out for open areas on both lower legs and heels as well as on the coccyx and in the area of the big toe. In October of the same year, the doctors documented their first success: “Decubitus in the sacral area has healed.” Blood tests were also carried out several times to check kidney function.
In the spring of the following year, the man was again hospitalized for, among other things, kidney failure and acute diarrhea due to an adenovirus infection. Two months later, another hospital stay followed because of fourth-degree decubitus ulcers in the sacral area and heel necrosis.
After his release, the man sued the resident doctor who had treated him in the clinic and demanded compensation of at least €50,000. His accusation: The family doctor did not adequately inform him that ibuprofen was contraindicated, or at least grossly incorrect, given the pre-existing renal insufficiency and other illnesses.
The court confirms that the treating doctor has acted correctly
However, the man was not successful with his presentation either in the first or second instance.
According to the Dresden Higher Regional Court (OLG), it has not yet been proven that in the specific case the administration of ibuprofen was contraindicated due to kidney and heart failure. In view of the patient’s significant previous illnesses, close family doctor checks are necessary. However, the standard requirements were adhered to.
The court further stated that even if the doctor had been accused of malpractice, the patient would not have provided evidence that he was responsible for his acute kidney failure. Rather, according to the expert, this was due to the severe loss of fluids due to the persistent massive diarrhea as a result of the intestinal infection. A connection with the ibuprofen medication cannot be ruled out, but it is also not likely.
Since the patient did not benefit from easier proof, his request could not be enforced. In the case of “gross treatment errors” there is a reversal of the burden of proof in favor of the injured party. However, according to the court, there is no “gross error of information” as a legal term. Therefore the patient was and remained obliged to provide evidence (Az. 4 U 245/23).