Winning battle for compensation for diagnostic omission of malignant tumour

First, do no harm

Few know that ‘Primum non nocere’, the ancient principle coined by the Greek physician Hippocrates, is only a small part of the text of the famous oath. The full wording of the verse of the oath from which this principle is derived and which the Father of Medicine followed is:

‘I will apply therapeutic treatments according to my ability and capacity for the benefit of the sick, defending them from harm and harm.’

According to this principle, the doctor, in his or her treatment, is not only to not harm the patient, but also to take all measures to protect the patient from the potential development of the disease. The moment the doctor ceases to protect his or her patient from the potential development of the disease, for example, by not performing additional tests and trusting his or her view uncritically, then this guiding principle is broken.

‘It's nothing serious...’

This sentence was heard by our client during a routine examination that lasted 3 minutes. ‘You will come for a check-up in a year... ‘. The lump she felt under her left breast continued to grow in the weeks following her appointment. Concerned, she went to another specialist, who this time carried out an ultrasound and ordered a tumour marker test. The diagnosis was quick and electrifying - cancer. Thanks to the quick reaction of the doctor to whom she went for a second examination, the cancer was removed less than a month after diagnosis, but she had to undergo chemotherapy, as the disease had already spread. Had it not been for the client's self-awareness and concern for her own health, she would in all probability not have come for her ‘check-up in a year’.

A diagnostic error has occurred

The District Court, before which the compensation proceedings against the doctor performing the first ‘examination’ were pending, was in no doubt. The omission to carry out additional examinations on our client and the recommendation that she be checked in a year's time resulted in a delay of several months in the diagnosis of the disease and the implementation of appropriate treatment. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Court found that a medical error had occurred through the doctor's omission in the sphere of diagnosis and treatment, contrary to medical science to the extent available to the doctor. The client received a substantial amount of compensation, which - let's be honest - compensates her harm, suffering, fear of tomorrow and, most importantly, the irretrievable loss of trust in doctors.

Doctors recognise the mistakes of colleagues 

The case described, like few others, also contradicts the stereotype that a doctor will not speak negatively about the work of a professional colleague. An expert opinion of a professor of medicine was issued in the case, which literally crushed and stigmatised the doctor's conduct. The above gives the lie to the claim that in the medical community ‘the hand, washes the hand’. Doctors recognise the mistakes of their colleagues and condemn them without fear of losing respect in the company.

Time for a change

One more reflection after this undoubted judicial success comes to mind. Namely, doctors, like few other professional groups, have the right to make a mistake. After all, they undertake ‘toadminister medical treatment to the best of their ability and capacity for the benefit of patients, protecting them from harm and harm’. Sometimes this battle is a losing one. The reason for the loss may be a mistake, a simple error. In such situations, saying ‘I am sorry’ and referring the patient to the insurer should be natural and simply, humanly speaking, honest. However, when a doctor who makes a mistake assumes the position of a ‘besieged fortress’ and refuses hand and foot to take responsibility for his or her actions, everyone loses out - the patient, the doctor, the medical community and also society.