[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/gregorydamy.niceavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/office-620822_1280-2.jpg” alt=”Avocat Nice Accident” title_text=”office-620822_1280-2″ _builder_version=”4.24.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.24.2″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
LAWYER IN NICE <\/strong><\/p>\n On October 16, 2024, in decision no. 22-23.433, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation issued a notable ruling regarding the rights of victims of bodily injury.<\/p>\n \n In this case, Mrs. E underwent a hip procedure. During the operation, a metal pin broke.<\/p>\n \n As a result, Mrs. E experienced severe pain, which persisted for over two years.<\/p>\n \n For this reason, she decided to sue the surgeon who had operated on her two years earlier, seeking liability.<\/p>\n \n An expert assessment revealed that the metal pin’s breakage could have been caused by:<\/p>\n Indeed, the surgical report failed to mention that the surgeon had started the operation by introducing air, followed by saline solution.<\/p>\n \n In his defense, the doctor argued that he routinely performed this initial step, even though it was not recorded in the report.<\/p>\n \n The Court of Appeal, considering this omission as merely a hypothetical fault, gave the benefit of the doubt to the surgeon and dismissed Mrs. E’s claims.<\/p>\n \n However, the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, holding that the absence of a complete record of the medical procedure in the surgical report established a presumption of fault against the surgeon.<\/p>\n \n Thus, it was up to the doctor to prove that he had strictly followed the medical protocol.<\/p>\n This ruling represents a significant development in medical liability law.<\/p>\n \n By principle, Article L1142-1 of the French Public Health Code states that a doctor’s liability can only be established in cases of proven fault, with the burden of proof resting on the victim.<\/p>\n \n Nevertheless, with this decision, the Court of Cassation reverses the burden of proof by creating a presumption of fault against the doctor in cases where all medical actions are not properly documented.<\/p>\n \n Ma\u00eetre DAMY, a lawyer in Nice and an expert in bodily injury law, provides dedicated support to victims in their legal proceedings. Feel free to contact us.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" LAWYER IN NICE A significant development in medical liability law. On October 16, 2024, in decision no. 22-23.433, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation issued a notable ruling regarding the rights of victims of bodily injury. In this case, Mrs. E underwent a hip procedure. During the operation, a metal pin broke. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-987508878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classifiee"],"yoast_head":"\nA significant development in medical liability law.<\/h1>\n
\n