TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Prispevek uvodoma pojasni bistvo zdravniške napake v ožjem smislu ter pojasnilne dolžnosti in njene kršitve kot podlage za odškodninsko odgovornost zdravnika. Avtorica se ukvarja z vprašanjem, ali je odgovornost za zdravniško napako pogodbena ali deliktna, in se opredeli za prvo, in sicer tako v primerih, ko gre za škodo zaradi zdravniške napake v ožjem smislu (ravnanja zdravnika contra legem artis), kot tedaj, ko gre za kršitev pojasnilne dolžnosti. Zavzame stališče, da je pogodba sklenjena (lahko konkludentno) že takoj, ko se pacient zglasi pri zdravniku in ta začne ukrepe zdravljenja v širšem smislu, zaradi česar je izpolnjevanje pojasnilne dolžnosti zdravnikova pogodbena obveznost, njena kršitev pa kršitev pogodbe, ne razlog za njen nenastanek ali neveljavnost. Razloži, da pojasnilna dolžnost ni v vseh primerih enaka, in opiše njene ravni v različnih primerih glede na nujnost zdravnikovega ukrepanja in stopnjo tveganja, ki jo to ukrepanje pomeni za pacienta. Pojasni razmerje med pojasnilno dolžnostjo in sklenitvijo pogodbe o zdravniških storitvah ter razmerje med pojasnilno dolžnostjo in privolitvijo v poseg. Zavzame stališče, da je oškodovanec tudi po pogodbeni podlagi upravičen do odškodnine za nepremoženjsko škodo.

The article initially explains the nature of a medical malpractice in the strict sense and the Duty to Inform and its violations as the basis for the liability of the doctor. It deals with the question of whether the liability for a medical malpractice is contractual or delictual and chooses the first in both cases, when there is the damage due to a medical malpractice in the strict sense (the behaviour of the doctor contra legem artis) and when there is a breach of the Duty To Inform. It takes a position on the contract as concluded (possibly implied contract) as soon as the patient is diagnosed and the doctor begins the treatment in the broad sense, which makes the fulfilment of the Duty To Inform a contractual obligation of the doctor and its violation is therefore a violation of the contract and not the reason for its non-emergence or invalidity. It explains that the Duty To Inform is not the same in all cases and clarifies its levels in different cases, given the urgency of the doctor’s action and the degree of risk that this action represents for the patient. It demonstrates the relationship between the Duty To Inform and the conclusion of a contract on medical services and the relationship between the Duty To Inform and the consent to the medical intervention. It takes the following position: the injured party is also entitled to compensation for non-pecuniary damage on a contractual basis.

Some Legal Issues Relating to Liability for Medical Error in Judicial Practice