1. Basic facts of the case
On July 11, 2020, the plaintiff underwent surgical resection in the defendant's hospital due to appendicitis . On July 20, 2020, the plaintiff was diagnosed with intestinal obstruction and small intestinal rupture in hospital. He performed parallel laparotomy, small intestinal resection, small intestinal ostomy, intestinal adhesion decomposition, and abdominal cleaning and drainage.
On September 1, 2020, the plaintiff went to the First Hospital of University X for cardiac radiofrequency ablation + percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion + central central organ electrophysiological examination + femoral venous puncture. On December 22, 2020, the plaintiff went to Hospital X for treatment and was hospitalized for 13 days. He was diagnosed with unexplained convulsions, ileostomy status, and chronic non-atrogenic gastritis .
On January 12, 2021, the plaintiff went to hospital for treatment and was hospitalized for 3 days. He was diagnosed with epilepsy, multiple lacunar cerebral infarction, carotid artery plaque , ileostomy status, short bowel syndrome , electrolyte Metabolic disorders, hypokalemia , hypocalcemia , hypomagnesemia , coronary atherosclerotic heart disease , coronary stent implantation, etc. On March 19, 2021, the plaintiff was hospitalized at Hospital X and was diagnosed with ileostomy.
2. Patient's opinion
Xu Mousheng, male, born on February 12, 1959. The plaintiff did not defecate during the treatment and nursing of appendicitis surgery. The pain before the operation still exists and is getting worse. The plaintiff's request for consultation did not get timely In response, the plaintiff's condition was not diagnosed until 9 days later, which was intestinal obstruction.
Due to the defendant's misdiagnosis and misdiagnosis, most of the plaintiff's small intestine was removed and the large intestine was partially removed, causing serious damage to the plaintiff's health. After judicial appraisal, the defendant was incorrect in diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis of the plaintiff; the failure to diagnose and treat the plaintiff's intestinal obstruction in a timely manner was a missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis, and he should bear the main responsibility for medical errors.
The plaintiff believes that the defendant should bear full liability for compensation for the consequences of the damage. The division of primary and secondary responsibilities in the appraisal letter should be the classification of the standards for the administrative assessment of doctors and rather than simply the division of civil liability.
3. Medical Presentation View
does not have misdiagnosis. The diagnosis is indeed appendicitis, without intestinal obstruction. The postoperative pathology is periphery inflammation, indicating that the inflammation is large; the identification of the diagnosis of appendicitis based on the diameter and thickness of the appendicitis of is unreasonable. When the hospital performed the operation on the plaintiff, it was informed to the patient's family that the large intestinal resection was caused by the plaintiff's mesenteric thrombosis. This disease occurs urgently and can start in 1 hour. In the medical record of
x, there was no abdominal relapse pain or muscle tension in the abdominal examination, so there was no intestinal necrosis . Intestinal necrosis occurred after being hospitalized in hospital in x. The plaintiff did not undergo surgery within 9 hours after being hospitalized in hospital in x. The plaintiff was given a drug to improve circulation. When the plaintiff was hospitalized in the defendant's hospital, the hospital informed his family that he had been using a drug to improve circulation.
When the defendant hospital wanted to continue symptomatic treatment and surgery if necessary, the plaintiff refused and was discharged from the hospital. The plaintiff did not have intestinal necrosis when he was discharged from the defendant, and intestinal necrosis occurred after being hospitalized in the x hospital. In summary, the plaintiff's appendicitis was established, and there was no intestinal necrosis when he was discharged from the hospital. The defendant's hospital was not responsible and did not agree to bear the liability for compensation.
4. Appraisal Opinions
The two parties jointly commissioned the x1 Judicial Appraisal Center and the case trial on July 30, 2021. The defendant submitted an application for re-appraisal to this court. The appraisal opinions of the x1 Judicial Appraisal Center on May 23, 2022 are consistent: x The assessment of medical fault participation in Provincial Hospital X was the main reason (causality participation is 56%-95%, recommended 75%); the remaining seventh-level disability.
5. Trial opinion
Defendant was diagnosed with appendicitis and was diagnosed with appendectomy . Later, the plaintiff went to x Hospital and x First Hospital for treatment due to persistent pain symptoms and was diagnosed with intestinal obstruction, and was subjected to parallel laparotomy, small intestine resection, small intestine, and small intestine. Ostomy, etc. The plaintiff's injury was issued by the x Zhengda Judicial Appraisal Center to determine that the defendant had medical fault. The fault had a direct causal relationship with the damage caused by partial resection of the plaintiff's small intestine and large intestine. The main reason for the fault is the power of the fault. This court decided that the defendant would bear the responsibility for 75 % liability for compensation.
6. Court judgment
June 29, 2022 court ruled that the defendant x Provincial Hospital compensated the plaintiff Xu Mousheng for economic losses of 614, 567.32 yuan.
[Declaration] Judicial Judicial Case.
