Source: http://arzthaftungsra.de/en/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:18:50+00:00

Document:
If the hospital operator and the patient (here: the mother of the minor patient) have the common idea that there is a statutory health insurance covering the costs of hospitalization, and if this turns out to be a mistake, then the hospital carrier and the patient ( here the mother of the minor patient) closed the treatment contract the business basis. The adjustment of the treatment contract concluded between the hospital carrier and the patient (in this case the mother of the patient) in the absence of the business basis leads to the fact that the hospital bearer compensates for the general hospital services of the patient in accordance with §§ 10 ff BPflV ( here: from the patient's mother). BGH, judgment of the 28. April 2005 - III ZR 351 / 04 - OLG Koblen LG Koblenz.
Maintaining the patient's right to self-determination requires information about an alternative treatment option if several equally-valued treatment options are available for medically meaningful and indicated therapy.
The appellate court correctly confirmed that the defendant had an obligation to provide information that two treatment alternatives were available, one of which was a new-country procedure at that time. According to the case law of the cognitive Senate, the choice of the treatment method is primarily the responsibility of the physician (Senate judgments BGHZ 102, 17, 22, 106, 153, 157, of the 11 May 1982 - VI ZR 171 / 80 - VersR 1982, 771, 772, 24, No-vember 1987 - VI ZR 65 / 87 - VersR 1988, 190, 191, and 15 March 2005 - VI ZR 313 / 03 - VersR 2005, 836; OLG two-bridges, OLGR 2001, 79, 81 with Senate decision of 19 December 2000 - VI ZR 171 / 00 - OLG Karlsruhe, MedR 2003, 229, 230).
The preservation of the patient's right to self-determination requires, however, information about an alternative treatment option if several equivalent treatment options are available for medically meaningful and indicated therapy, which lead to different strains on the patient or offer different risks and chances of success (Senate judgments BGHZ 102, 17 , 22; 106, 153, 157; of the 14 September 2004 - VI ZR 186 / 03 - VersR 2005, 227; of the 15 March 2005 - VI ZR 313 / 03 - aaO; Katzenmeier, Arzstaftung, 2002, S. 331 f ; MünchKommBGB / Wagner, 4., Ed., § 823 Rn. 707 f .; Staudinger / Hager, BGB, 13. Editing , § 823, Rn. I 92 mwN).
The original documents filed by the parties pursuant to § 134 ZPO or by third parties pursuant to § 142 para. 1 ZPO are not part of the court records. A claim for access to the file or the issue of copies does not follow directly from § 299 ZPO. For documents that are directly from the court gem. § 142 ZPO be requested from third parties, there is a claim to the production of photocopies but both from the provisions of §§ 131, 133 ZPO and an analogous application of § 299 ZPO in compliance with the principle of legal hearing acc. Art. 103 para. 1 GG.
§ 299 ZPO does not expressly provide for a transmission of the case files to the representatives of the parties. However, the shipment may be made in due discretion if the files are expendable and the recipient is trustworthy. The decision must respect the principle of the right to be heard.
The same applies to the documents and documents filed by the parties or pursuant to § 142 ZPO if the person between whom and the court established the custody relationship agrees to a transmission of the files to the authorized representatives of the parties. Before the court refuses to send it, it must first ask the third party whether they agree to a transmission of the documents to the representatives of both parties.

References: § 823
 § 823
 § 134
 § 142
 § 299
 § 142
 § 299
 Art. 103

§ 299
 § 142