1. Plaintiff's statement
On June 12, 2018, plaintiff Dong Mouping was diagnosed with gallstones by X City Hospital and began hospitalization. The hospital decided to perform minimally invasive surgery for gallstones on June 22, 2018. Before the operation, Dr. Xuan promised that it would be 7 days at the latest, and he would be discharged from the hospital in two or three days. More than an hour after the operation, the doctor informed me that he needed to turn to the abdomen for reasons such as not being able to see clearly.
Although the plaintiff's family did not understand, they complied with the hospital's prescription for a laparotomy and completed the operation after more than 3 hours. A few days later, the plaintiff had a high fever and the doctor asked us to buy cold medicine, and after two days the fever had not subsided, the doctor asked us to buy effervescent tablets. The plaintiff thought that there must be a reason for the high fever for so many days to buy what effervescent tablets to buy, and asked the doctor to find out why he had a fever.
Sure enough, upon examination, there was fluid accumulation in the chest and abdomen, and the lungs were already infected. In the days that followed, doctors at the hospital in City X were at a loss to find out where the fluid was coming from. A few days later, only a specialist from C was invited to consult and perform a second operation. Postoperative notification: During an operation to remove the gallbladder, the laser accidentally damaged the liver duct, and the postoperative area was inflamed and caused bile fistula.
2. Patient's point of view
The patient had a fever for so many days, and the hospital in X City could not find the cause of the effusion, and watched the patient suffer from the pain and stubbornly struggle with death for more than 10 days. Because the doctor touched the place that should not be touched during the operation, and at the same time, he turned a blind eye to the drainage tube in the abdomen after the operation, and he was treated according to the cold after the fever, and the inflammation caused by the trauma of the liver duct was not detected in time, which directly aggravated the condition and delayed the treatment and finally led to the second operation.
Originally, a small minimally invasive surgery went through two laparotomy surgeries and the hospital stay lasted for more than 90 days, which invisibly increased the pain and suffering of the patient, almost brushed shoulders with death, harmed the physical and mental health of the patient, added burden and trouble to the plaintiff's family and relatives, and also increased the plaintiff's financial burden.
3. Defendant X City Hospital argued
1. As a civil litigation case of medical damage liability dispute, according to the law, Dong Mouping, as a patient, has the qualifications of the plaintiff in this case, and Liu Mouping is not a patient, so Liu Baiping is not a qualified plaintiff in this case.
2. After the dispute arose in this case, the doctor and the patient jointly entrusted X Judicial Appraisal Institute to conduct a judicial clinical appraisal. After accepting the entrustment, the X Judicial Appraisal Institute issued the X19 "Judicial Appraisal Opinion on Medical Damage Appraisal". There is no objection to this appraisal conclusion.
3. With regard to the items and amounts of compensation, the people's courts are requested to make a public judgment in accordance with the law and relevant provisions and judicial appraisal conclusions. As a medical institution and medical staff, although the diagnosis and treatment activities are carried out in strict accordance with relevant laws, regulations, rules, and medical standards, it is inevitable that mistakes will occur. We do not shirk our responsibilities after problems arise, and since the appraisal department has already made an appraisal opinion, we ask the court to make a fair judgment in accordance with the law.
4. Dong Mouping advocates solatium for mental damages, but since the patient does not constitute a disability, we do not agree to pay solatium for mental damages; we have no opinion on the appraisal fee, and we have no opinion on the transportation expenses within a reasonable range. We do not know whether the above-mentioned items are 108,341.4 yuan after specific accounting, and we request the court to make a public judgment in accordance with the law.
4. Appraisal opinions
Patient Dong Mouping, female, born on February 7, 1965, was at fault for failing to perform the "high duty of care" in the process of "laparoscopic cholecystectomy, transfer to abdominal common bile duct excision and exploratory stone removal and T tube drainage" for Dong Mouping, and there was a direct causal relationship between this fault and "re-laparotomy and biliary tract exploration and invasive drainage" due to bile leakage, and its reference participation was assessed as 96%-100%.
5. Trial opinions
This hospital believes that on June 21, 2018, Dong Mouping was hospitalized in X City Hospital for gallstones, and on June 22, 2018, X City Hospital performed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for Dong Mouping, and then transferred to abdominal choledochiotomy to explore stone removal and T tube drainage. A few days after the operation, Dong Mouping had a high fever that did not go away, and Dong Mouping was radiographically examined by X City Hospital for infection in the right lower lung and pleural effusion on the right side.
On July 7, 2018, Professor Liu was invited to perform laparotomy and biliary tract exploration and detraumatic drainage on Dong Mouping again, and it was recorded in the surgical records of X City Hospital that "the exploration showed that a small amount of biliary effusion was about 50mI in the interval, and the biliary effusion in the gallbladder fossa was about 30mI, and the abdominal drainage tube was encased and blocked by the surrounding tissues".
Dong Mouping's losses were determined to be 19,498.72 yuan for medical expenses, 22,010.40 yuan for lost work expenses, 6,740.55 yuan for nursing expenses, 3,000 yuan for nutrition expenses, 8,200 yuan for hospital meal subsidies, 4,900 yuan for appraisal fees, 154 yuan for transportation expenses, and 2,000 yuan for mental damages, totaling 66,503.67 yuan.
6. The Court's decision
On November 22, 2021, it was decided that City X Hospital should bear full responsibility and compensate Dong Mouping for various losses of 66,503.67 yuan.
【Judicial Adjudication Cases】