Workers at work after the vertebral fracture of the internal fixing screw fracture sued the hospital claim 200,000

Medical case patient Mr. Single (51 years old) fell from a high place on the construction site, was admitted to the county hospital on the same day for treatment, was diagnosed as L5 vertebral compression fracture, L4 vertebral transverse fracture, L4 vertebral I degree slip, L5 fracture under epidural anesthesia by the skin bow root screw internal fixation.
a year and a half later, Mr. Shan checked into the county hospital again and asked for the internal fixtures to be removed.
Because the vertebral bow root screw broken, broken end buried in the bone, surgery to interrupt the nail removal difficulties, in order to avoid greater trauma or nerve damage, need to give up the removal of broken nails, the hospital to Mr. Single informed the relevant condition, Mr. Shan expressed understanding of the condition, if necessary, agreed to give up the removal of broken nails.
hospital gave Mr. Shan a general anaesthetic to remove fixtures from the lower spine (the broken screw is still partially remaining in Mr. Single's body), after which Mr. Shan was certified to have a disability rating of nine.
. Shan believes that the fracture of his vertebral bow screw is related to the hospital's medical treatment behavior, for this reason, the court filed a compensation suit, asking the county hospital to compensate for its losses totalling more than 200,000 yuan.
court heard the judicial opinion that this case is unstable fracture, and for the burst fracture, fracture in the position of greater waist activity, choose "bone fusion internal fixation" than "vertebral bow root screw internal fixation" is better; The surgical informed consent provided by the party, no alternative, did not specify the advantages and disadvantages of "bone fusion internal fixation" and "vertebral bow screw internal fixation", taking into account individual differences, the use of "bone fusion internal fixation" in this case should be more excellent.
the doctor's choice of surgical method does not violate the medical principles, but is not the best choice, and the patient's vertebral root screw break there is a certain correlation.
patients have not been regularly reviewed for nearly a year, to a certain extent, affecting the timely detection and timely intervention of abnormal conditions in the process of fracture healing, and there is an association with the fracture of the vertebral bow screw.
, the hospital was at fault for Mr. Shan's medical treatment, and the hospital's fault was a minor cause of Mr. Shan's damage (broken vertebral bow screw).
Hospital disputed the conclusion of the appraisal, considered that there were many errors in the scope of identification, the facts of identification and the analysis and conclusion, and submitted the works on the treatment of thoracic lumbar fractures in Camberle Orthopaedic Surgery and Chest and Lumbar Vertebral Trauma, but did not apply for re-identification.
The court of first instance held that the works on the treatment of thoracic lumbar fractures in Camberle Orthopaedic Surgery and Chest and Lumbar Vertebral Trauma submitted by the hospital were mainly discussed as surgery or non-surgical and surgical methods, and that for various reasons, their treatment was still controversial, and that the views expounded in the work did not form a unified opinion, which was not sufficient to overturn the judicial opinion, considering that the medical conduct fault judgment involved strong medical professional areas, the people's court could only refer to the professional body's appraisal opinion and reject the hospital's objection.
on the basis of the appraisal opinion to judge the hospital to bear 15% of the responsibility, compensation for Mr. Single's losses totalling more than 30,000 yuan.
hospital did not appeal, the court of second instance decided to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
of industrial injury insurance and medical disputes can obtain double compensation? Article 12 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Questions of the Law Applying to the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases stipulates that if a worker of an employer who is required to participate in the overall planning of work-related injury insurance in accordance with the law suffers personal injury as a result of an accident at work, the worker or his next of kin shall sue the people's court for civil liability, and shall be informed that he shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance.
the right to compensate a third party for personal injury caused by infringement by a third party other than the employing unit, the people's court shall support it.
2 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that infringement of civil rights and interests shall be subject to tort liability in accordance with this Law.
Injury Insurance is to protect employees from medical treatment and corresponding financial compensation when they suffer injuries at work, there is a different legal relationship between the Industrial Injury Insurance Regulations and the Tort Liability Law, and there is no legal competition.
whether the infringer receives compensation for work-related injury insurance does not affect the infringer's liability for compensation, even if the employer has already awarded compensation for injured workers' work-related injury insurance, it cannot exempt or reduce the infringer's liability.
therefore, if a worker suffers personal injury as a result of infringement by a third party other than the employer and is found to be injured at the same time, he shall not only have the right to claim compensation for work injury insurance from the employer, but also the right to claim personal injury compensation from a third party.
, there are objections to the appraisal opinion, how to deal with it? The Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure clearly stipulate that if a party has any objection to the contents of the certificate, it shall submit it in writing within the time specified by the people's court.
the objection of the parties, the people's court shall require the appra identifier to explain, explain or supplement.
the people's court deems it necessary, it may require the appra identifier to explain, explain or supplement the contents of which the parties have not raised objections.
if the party concerned still has any objection after receiving the written reply from the apprathought, the people's court shall notify the dissenting party to pay the appraser's court fees in advance and notify the apprathought to appear in court.
If one of the following four circumstances exists, the parties may also apply for re-identification according to law: (1) if the appra apprase does not have the corresponding qualifications; (2) if the appraisal procedure is seriously illegal; (3) if the appraisal opinion is obviously insufficiently based; and (4) if the appraisal opinion cannot be used as evidence.
the people's court shall not permit re-identification if there are defects in the appraisal opinion that can be resolved by means of correction, supplementary appraisal or supplementary physical examination or re-examination.
According to the Medical Law Exchange Team's 2019 National Big Data Report on Medical Damage Liability Disputes, of the second-instance cases involving accreditation in 2019, there were 1,188 cases in which the parties disagreed with the appraisal opinion and 102 cases in which they agreed to reapply for accreditation.
cases, the vast majority of cases are entrusted by the parties alone, the other party does not recognize the conclusion of the appraisal, and the court has initiated the re-identification procedure with the permission of the court in accordance with the law.
So if the application for re-identification does not meet the above-mentioned provisions, the people's court is not supported, the most powerful way to challenge the appraisal opinion is to apply for expert support to assist in the examination of evidence, to apply to the people's court for experts and expert support to appear in court, to assist the court to find out the facts of the case, in order to achieve the purpose of overturning the appraisal opinion or re-identification.
Article 14 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Certain Questions of the Law Applying to the Trial of Medical Damage Liability Disputes stipulates that if a party applies for notice to one or two persons with medical expertise to appear in court and to make comments on the appraisal opinions or other specialized factual issues of the case, the people's court shall, with permission, notify the person with medical expertise to appear in court.
opinions made by persons with medical expertise as provided for in the fore paragraph shall be regarded as statements made by the parties concerned and may be corred as a basis for determining the facts of the case.
In this case, although the hospital disputed the appraisal opinion and submitted to the court the works on the treatment of thoracic lumbar fracture in Camberle Orthopaedic Surgery and Chest Lumbar Vertebral Trauma, it did not apply for the identification and expert auxiliary to appear in court to testify, nor did it apply for re-identification, resulting in "the court taking into account the medical conduct fault judgment involving a stronger medical professional field, can only refer to the professional body's appraisal opinion" adverse consequences.
(this article is original medical law, based on the real case adaptation, in order to protect the privacy of the parties are using a real name)