Our research aims to obtain the central coordinates of the system for determining the professional liability of a doctor in accordance with Law no. 95/2006. With this approach, we began with a brief introduction to the problem, defining the responsibilities of the physician in a medical act and defining the legal concept of medical negligence. We then addressed the issues related to the opening and conduct of proceedings before the Control and Professional Competence Commission in the event of abuse of office. Finally, we have come to a conclusion on certain shortcomings of the envisaged procedure.
1. Definition, regulation, general considerations
In the exercise of the profession, according to the Code of Ethics, the doctor is required to protect the physical and mental health of a person, to relieve suffering, to respect human life and dignity without discrimination, by respecting the standards ethical and legal standards that establish the minimum moral standards characteristic of the practice. this profession. The violation of these ethical standards, because it jeopardizes the values protected by law, can lead to the civil liability of the doctor for abuse of power.
Medical malpractice is defined in art. 642 of Law No. 95/2006 on the reform of healthcare as professional misconduct in the performance of a medical or medico-pharmaceutical act, causing harm to a patient, including civil liability of staff medical and a supplier of medical, health or pharmaceutical products and services. Personal Injury Lawyer Paul Marietta can tell you all about the rules.
By explaining the definition given in the legal text, it can be said that medical malpractice is unprofessional behavior below the standards of competence and public understanding established and adopted by the professional body on the basis of negligence or negligence. incompetence and the provision of insufficient medical care with negative consequences for the patient.
The doctor is civilly liable for damages caused by an error, including negligence, recklessness or insufficient medical knowledge in the exercise of the profession by an individual action of prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
Thus, in order to prosecute the rapist doctors, deliberate illegal actions and crimes committed on the account are practiced. While a physician’s guilt can represent a form of intent, most acts of malpractice are committed out of guilt, which is often the guilt of directing medical personnel.
Article 668-674 of Chapter XV of Law No. 95/2006 establishes a special procedure for determining cases of professional liability of doctors, pharmacists and other persons in the field of health care. It should be noted that this procedure concerns only the civil liability of the doctor. There are 673 couples in art. (2) The law expressly provides that this procedure for determining cases of abuse of power does not prevent free access to justice in accordance with the common law. Read it.
In accordance with the legal provisions mentioned above, patients who believe that they have suffered such harm can apply to the abuse monitoring and professional competence committees organized at the level of the public health services of each district and Bucharest. This commission can be notified by a person who considers himself to be the victim of an abuse of power committed in the context of prevention, diagnosis and treatment, or by a deceased survivor through negligence of prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
- Procedure before the Control and Professional Competence Commission in the event of abuse of office
It should be noted at the outset that the right to claim compensation for damages by a person deemed to be the victim of an abuse of power is prohibited for three years from the date of the incident.
Additional resources: https: //www.spinalcord.com/blog/7-secrets-of-successful-personal-injury-lawyers
The launch of this procedure, provided for in art. 668-674 of law no. 95/2006 intervenes with the notification of the specific situation to the Commission in order to establish the presence or absence of a case of professional misconduct by persons who consider themselves victims of an act of professional misconduct or the successors of that person.