Compensation for moral damage because the injection of the drug was performed incorrectly, the Court came to the correct conclusion that there was a direct causal relationship between the actions of the ambulance staff and the consequences of these actions for the plaintiff.
T. filed a lawsuit with the municipal state–owned enterprise "Semey City Emergency Medical Service Station" (hereinafter referred to as ambulance) for compensation for moral damage. In the lawsuit, T. stated that on March 8, 2011, he called the ambulance staff. Upon arrival, the latter improperly injected him with Diclofenac, which led to side effects. a postinjection infiltrate of the right gluteal region developed, complicated by secondary neuralgia of the right sciatic nerve, 50% of working capacity was lost and disability group 3 was received for a period up to August 6, 2013. He asked to collect compensation for moral damage from the defendant in the amount of 5,000,000 tenge. By the decision of the Semeysky City Court of the East Kazakhstan region dated March 26, 2013, T.'s claim was partially satisfied. The court decided: to collect compensation for moral damage in the amount of 1,000,000 tenge from the defendant in favor of T., as well as a state fee in the amount of 866 tenge to the state revenue. The rest of the claim was denied. By the decision of the Appellate Judicial Board for Civil and Administrative Cases of the East Kazakhstan Regional Court dated October 23, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Appeals board), the decision of the Semey City Court dated March 26, 2013 was amended.
Regarding the satisfaction of T.'s claims to recover compensation for moral damage from the defendant in the amount of 1,000,000 tenge, court costs in the amount of 866 tenge were canceled, and a new decision was made to dismiss T.'s claim in this part. The rest of the decision of the court of first instance remains unchanged. By the decision of the Cassation Judicial Board of the East Kazakhstan Regional Court dated January 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Cassation board), the decision of the appeals board remained unchanged. In the petition, the applicant T. He asked to cancel the decisions of the appeal and cassation boards while upholding the decision of the court of first instance, pointing out that the conclusions of the appeal and cassation boards completely contradict the evidence in the case.
Compensation for moral damage because the injection of the drug was performed incorrectly, the Court came to the correct conclusion that there was a direct causal relationship between the actions of the ambulance staff and the consequences of these actions for the plaintiff.
Thus, the collegiums did not take into account the conclusion of the Committee for the Control of Medical and Pharmaceutical Activities of the Ministry of Health (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). dated April 13, 2012, according to which the harm to his health was caused due to improper administration of the drug Diclofenac. However, the appeals board did not take this conclusion into account, but referred to the conclusion of the repeated commission examination No. 76 dated July 4, 2012, which did not see a causal link between the actions of medical workers and the development of his pathology. Four forensic medical examinations have been conducted on this fact, but each of them is mutually exclusive and contradictory, which have not been properly investigated together by the appeal and cassation boards. Having studied the case materials at the request of the plaintiff, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan annulled the contested judicial acts, upholding the decision of the Semey City Court of March 26, 2013 on the following grounds. It follows from the case file that on March 8, 2011, ambulance workers T. Diclofenac was injected into the upper square of the right gluteal region, the drug Enap was injected intravenously with a sodium chloride solution, and a Captopril tablet was given. Based on the call card indicating the use of these medications, the ambulance doctors diagnosed arterial hypertension, osteochondrosis of the thoracic spine, intercostal neuralgia on the left.
From March 9 to March 13, March 17, 19, 20, and March 21, 2011, ambulance workers also attended to the calls of T., who complained of pain in the right gluteal region and swelling caused by injection of Diclofenac. From March 21 to April 5, 2011, T. was hospitalized in an emergency hospital with a diagnosis of necrosis of the right gluteal region, and from April 5 to April 21, 2011, T. – in the neurosurgical department of the Semey State Medical University Medical Center with a diagnosis of secondary neuralgia of the right sciatic nerve, compression-ischemic syndrome of the muscles of the right buttock, osteochondrosis of the large joints of the FNS 1. From May 4 to May 11, 2011, T. was treated in the proctological department of the East Kazakhstan Regional Medical Association with a diagnosis of post-injection abscess of the right buttock with skin necrosis, and an operation was performed on the affected area. From May 11 to May 23, 2011, he was treated in the neurological department of the specified medical institution with a diagnosis of secondary sciatic nerve neuropathology with moderate pain syndrome, distal paresis of the leg, acute phases. From June 16 to June 24, 2011, T. was treated in a day hospital at a mixed-type polyclinic in Semey with a diagnosis of cerebral atherosclerosis, secondary sciatic nerve neuropathy on the right with moderate pain, distal paresis of the leg, subremission.
From February 17 to March 1, 2012, T. was treated at the City Hospital No. 2 with a diagnosis of post-injection sciatic nerve neuropathy on the right, mild right foot paresis, lumbar osteochondrosis, lumboishalgia on the right. From July 10 to July 18, 2012, T. was treated in the cardiology department of JSC Republican Scientific Center for Emergency Medical Care with a diagnosis of angina pectoris, arterial hypertension, chronic bronchitis, sciatic nerve neuropathy. On August 6, 2012, the conclusion of the medical and social expertise No. 1295 on the general disease of T. A 50% loss of general disability was established and disability group 3 was assigned until August 6, 2013. On July 18, 2012, the investigator of the investigative department of the Central Police Department of the Department of Internal Affairs of Semey B., by his decision, refused to institute criminal proceedings on the fact of T.'s appeal against the actions of medical workers. As part of the verification of T.'s appeal, the police appointed and conducted three forensic medical examinations: No. 688 dated April 8, 2011; No. 65 dated November 1, 2011 and No. 76 dated July 4, 2012. The Court of First instance, satisfying T.'s claim, motivated its conclusion by the fact that the guilt of the ambulance workers was proved by the conclusion of the Committee dated April 13, 2012, according to which T.'s health was harmed due to improper administration of the drug Diclofenac. The appeals board, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and rejecting T.'s claim, motivated its conclusion by the fact that the expert opinion of July 4, 2012 established that skin necrosis could not have formed as a result of intramuscular injection of the drug, since post-injection necrosis would have been detected in deeper tissues, that is, 4.5-5 cm in the depth depends on the length of the injection needle. This necrosis may have been formed as a result of surface-contact manipulations (alcohol compresses, heat). The diagnosis of "post-traumatic sciatic nerve injury" is not related to this manipulation, since the intramuscular injection was made in the upper square, and skin necrosis was in the lower square. The Commission did not find a causal relationship between the actions of medical professionals and the development of the above pathology (necrosis, sciatic nerve damage). The cassation board agreed with these conclusions of the appeals board. Meanwhile, the supervisory judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan concluded that the conclusions of the appeal and cassation boards were invalid, and also established the incorrect application of substantive law.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
