Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2021. Issue 4 (54) |
||||||||||
Title: | DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LAW OF RUSSIA, BELARUS AND THE EU MEMBER STATES |
|||||||||
Authors: |
M. V. Kratenko, Saint Petersburg State University |
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
|
||||||||
ORCID: | 0000-0002-6583-0588 |
ResearcherID: | AAS-7459-2020 |
|||||||
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»: |
DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2020-50-762-786 |
|||||||||
V. P. Moroz, Belarusian State University |
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | |||||||||
ORCID: | 0000-0001-7229-4149 |
ResearcherID: | AAW-6119-2021 | |||||||
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»: | --- | |||||||||
Requisites: | Kratenko M. V., Moroz V. P. Problemy dokazyvaniya v meditsinskikh sporakh: sravniteln'yy analiz prava Rossii, Belarusi i stran Evrosoyuza [Difficulties of Proof in Medical Malpractice Cases: a Comparative Analysis of the Law of Russia, Belarus and the EU Member States]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2021. Issue 54. Pp. 766–789. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2021-54-766-789 |
|||||||||
DOI: | 10.17072/1995-4190-2021-54-766-789 |
|||||||||
Annotation: |
Introduction: in medical malpractice cases, patients (plaintiffs) or their relatives face serious obstacles in proving the conditions of liability of the health care provider: the fact of a medical error, the harm to health, and the causal link. The inherent informational inequality between the parties (a professional subject v. an ordinary person) and the limited accessibility of medical records (potential evidence) for the patient encourage the lawmakers and factfinders to deviate from the traditional formula for allocating the burden of proof. Purpose: to identify general trends in the development of judicial practice in medical disputes in Russia, Belarus, and the EU member states; to assess the prospects for the use in Russia and Belarus of evidence-based approaches developed by foreign legal doctrine to better protect patients’ rights. Methods: the authors use the comparative legal research method when dealing with the legislation, case law, and the legal doctrine of Russia, Belarus, the EU member states and other countries. Results: we have formulated a number of proposals for Russian and Belarusian jurisprudence based on international experience: to use the outcome criterion in assessing the quality of routine medical treatments and interventions (Fr. – obligation de résultat); to interpret any defects in medical records (incomplete information, unspecified corrections, etc.) in favor of the patient; to lower the standard of proof when proving the causal link to the preponderance of probabilities. |
|||||||||
Keywords: | patient; injury; medical negligence; causal link; burden of proof; proportional approach; loss of chance doctrine |
|||||||||
download the full-version article | ||||||||||
References: | 1. Barinov S. A. Spory o vozmeshhenii vreda, prichinennogo nenadlezhashhim vrache-vaniem: neobkhodimost' dopolnitel'noy zakono¬datel'noy reglamentatsii [Disputes over Compen¬sation for Harm Caused by Improper Treatment: the Need for Additional Legal Regulation]. Sovremennoe pravo – Modern Law. 2013. Issue 6. Pp. 125–128. (In Russ.). 2. Bozhchenko A. P. Problemy i nedostatki ekspertnogo ustanovleniya prichinnoy svyazi [Issues and Shortcomings of Expert Determination of a Causal Relationship]. Meditsinskoe pravo – Medical Law. 2020. Issue 4. Pp. 44–49. (In Russ.). 3. Gabay P. G. Dogovor na lechenie ili izlechenie patsienta? [A Contract of Treatment or a Contract for Recovery of the Patient?]. Meditsinskoe pravo – Medical Law. 2015. Issue 1. Pp. 16–23. (In Russ.). 4. Idrisov Kh. V. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost' meditsinskikh organizatsiy za vred, prichinennyy zhizni ili zdorov'yu grazhdanina [Legal Liability of Medical Organizations for Harm Caused to the Life or Health of a Citizen]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal – Russian Juri¬di¬cal Journal. 2019. Issue 4. Pp. 121–132. (In Russ.). 5. Koz'minykh E. Obyazatel'stva vsledstvie prichineniya vreda zdorov'yu pri okazanii meditsinskikh uslug [Obligations Due to Causing Injury to a Patient's Health]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya – Russian Justice. 2001. Issue 2. Pp. 32–34. (In Russ.). 6. Kofman V. I. Granitsy yuridicheski zha-chi¬mogo prichineniya [The Limits of Legal Causation]. Pravovedenie – Jurisprudence. 1960. Issue 3. Pp. 50–58. (In Russ.). 7. Kratenko M. V., Luik O.-J. Vozme-shhenie vreda, prichinennogo vsledstvie nenadlezhashhego meditsinskogo vmeshatel'stva: sravnitel'nyy analiz opyta Rossii i Estonii [Liability for Medical Malpractice: Comparative Analysis of the Legal Experience of the Russian Federation and Estonia]. Zakon – Law. 2020. Issue 7. Pp. 68–83. (In Russ.). 8. Moroz V. P. Usloviya vozmeshheniya vreda patsientu, prichinennogo v rezul'tate meditsinskogo vmeshatel'stva [Conditions of Compensation for Harm Caused to a Patient as a Result of Medical Treatment]. Zdravookhranenie – Healthcare. 2019. Issue 4. Pp. 53–60. (In Russ.). 9. Rabets A. M., Eremin G. B., Mokhov D. E., Seregina I. F., Maymulov V. G. Prava potrebiteley uslug v zdravookhranenii [Consumer Healthcare Rights]. Moscow, 2010. 318 p. (In Russ.). 10. Starchikov M. Yu. Protivopravnost' kak uslovie grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti meditsinskoy organizatsii za vred, prichinennyy zhizni (zdorov'yu) patsientov: polozheniya zakonodatel'stva, kommentarii i sudebnaya praktika [Unlawfulness as a Condition of Civil Liability of Medical Organizations for Harm to Life (Health) of Patients: Legal Provisions, Commentary and Court Practice]. 2019. (In Russ.). 11. Shevchenko A. S., Shevchenko G. N. Deliktnye obyazatel'stva v rossiyskom grazh-dan¬skom prave: uchebnoe posobie [Tort Liability in Russian Civil Law: Textbook]. Moscow, 2013. 133 p. (In Russ.). 12. Shepel' T. V. Sootnoshenie dogovornoy i deliktnoy otvetstvennosti meditsinskoy organizatsii pered patsientom [Correlation of Contractual and Tortious Liability of a Healthcare Organization to a Patient]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo – Tomsk State University Journal of Law. 2020. Vol. 38. Pp. 153–162. (In Russ.). 13. Shimanskaya S. V. Prichinno-sledst-vennaya svyaz' kak uslovie grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti pri osushhestvlenii meditsinskoy deyatel'nosti [Causation as a Condition of Civil Liability in Medical Practice]. Meditsinskoe pravo – Medical Law. 2010. Issue 4. Pp. 32–37. (In Russ.). 14. Shmarov L. A. Problemy prichinnosti v sudebno-meditsinskikh ekspertizakh po «vracheb¬nym delam» [Problems of Causality in Fo¬rensic Medical Examinations on 'Medical Cases']. Sudebno-meditsinskaya ekspertiza – Forensic Medical Expertise. 2021. Vol. 64. Issue 1. Pp. 5–11. DOI: 10.17116/sudmed2021640115. (In Russ.). 15. Beran R. G., Rapozo V. L., Yang M. Loss of Chance Across Different Jurisdictions (the Why and Wherefore). Peking University Law Journal. 2020. Vol. 8. Issue 2. Pp. 143–157. DOI: 10.1080/20517483.2020.1857116. (In Eng.). 16. Coggiola N. Medical Liability Law in Italy. Journal de Droit de la Santé et de l'Assurance Maladie. 2019. Issue 23. Pp. 45–53. DOI: 10.3917/jdsam.192.0045. (In Eng.). 17. Ferreira R. C. The Loss of Chance in Civil Law Countries: A Comparative and Critical Analysis. Maastricht Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2013. Vol. 20. Issue 1. Pp. 56–74. DOI: 10.1177/1023263X1302000104. (In Eng.). 18. Goldberg R. Medical Malpractice and Compensation in the UK. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2012. Vol. 87. Issue 1. Pp. 131–161. Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/ vol87/iss1/7. (In Eng.). 19. Ken Oliphant, Richard W. Wright (eds.) Medical Malpractice and Compensation in Global Perspective. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2013. 562 p. (In Eng.). 20. Leflar R. B. The Law of Medical Misadventure in Japan. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2012. Vol. 87. Issue 1. Pp. 79–110. (In Eng.). 21. Nõmper A., Sootak J. Meditsiiniõigus. Tallinn, 2007. 232 p. (In Est.). 22. Stauch M. S. Medical Malpractice and Compensation in Germany. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2011. Vol. 86. Issue 3. Pp. 1139–1168. (In Eng.). 23. Timmerbeil S. The Role of Expert Witnesses in German and U.S. Civil Litigation. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law. 2003. Vol. 9. Issue 1. Art. 8. Pp. 163–187. (In Eng.). 24. Yu Xiaowei. Causal Uncertainty in Chinese Medical Malpractice Law – When Theories Meet Facts. Tsinghua China Law Review. 2016. Vol. 9. Issue 1. Pp. 3–41. (In Eng). |
|||||||||
Received: | 25.08.2021 | |||||||||
Financing: |
--- |