Source: http://arzthaftungsra.de/en/author/admin/
Timestamp: 2019-07-20 04:24:22
Document Index: 520358538

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 823', '§ 531', '§ 280', '§ 823', 'Art. 103', '§ 531', '§ 78', '§ 2']

admin | | horak. Lawyers - Medical Liability Law
admin Under Construction, Alternative treatments, Malpractice, Malpractice, treatment failure, Behandlungsrisiken, § 823 Abs 1 BGB 10. July 2018 Achalsie, Enlightenment breach of duty, bleeding, Embolism, faulty medical treatment, Infektion, laparoscopic esophagomyotomy; fluid accumulation, rebleeding, Surgery, Thrombosis, ulceration	0 comments
a) A duty to inform the doctor exists only with respect to those risks that are already known at the time of treatment.
b) The appellant, who triumphs in the first instance, may rely not only on timely notification that, and for what reasons, the Appeals Tribunal does not wish to follow the appraisal of the lower court, but also to obtain an opportunity to supplement his case-statement effectively or to take further evidence.
c) § 531 para. 2 sentence 1 No. 1 ZPO presupposes that the legal opinion of the court has influenced the first-instance substantive submissions of the party and has therefore become (co-) the reason for the fact that party submissions have been postponed to appeal proceedings. However, this is already to be assumed if the court of the first instance, had it shared the later considered correct by the Court of Appeal, had been obliged to make a reference under Section 139 para. 2 ZPO.
BGH DECISION VI ZR 370 / 17 of 29. May 2018
BGB § 280, § 823 Abs. 1 Aa, I; GG Art. 103 Abs. 1; ZPO § 531 Abs. 2 Continue reading
admin Under Construction 15. May 2018 0 comments
admin Under Construction, Pharmacy law 10. October 2017 6. February 2018 AMG, AMPreisV, finished product, wholesaler, Purchase price, Discount, cash discount	0 comments
On the admissibility of discounts and discounts in pharmaceutical wholesaling in the case of dispensing prescription medicines to pharmacies
Judgment of the 5. October 2017 - I ZR 172 / 16
The I. Civil Senate of the Federal Supreme Court, which is responsible for competition law, has today ruled that pharmaceutical wholesalers are not obliged to levy a minimum price when dispensing prescription medicines to pharmacies.
The defendant is a pharmaceutical wholesaler distributing prescription drugs (so-called Rx articles). She advertised in an information leaflet and on her website by offering her pharmacy customers a discount of 70% plus 3% discount on the discounted price on all Rx items up to 2,5 € and a discount of 70% plus 2 from 2,5 € up to the high price limit % Discount on the discounted price.
The plaintiff, the center for combating unfair competition, sees this as a violation of the price regulations in § 78 of the Medicines Act (AMG) and § 2 of the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation (AMPreisV) in the since 1. January 2012 applicable version. It has claimed the defendant for injunctive relief and compensation for charges. Continue reading
admin access to the file, Under Construction, Malpractice, Medical records 21. August 2017 6. February 2018 treatment failure, treatment contract, legitimate interest, Publication of the names and addresses of the doctors in charge, Hospital	0 comments
Ein Patient kann vom behandelnden Krankenhaus – gegen Kostenerstattung – ohne weiteres die Herausgabe aller Behandlungsunterlagen verlangen. Namen und Anschriften der an seiner Behandlung beteiligten Ärzte muss das Krankenhaus aber nur dann mitteilen, wenn der Patient ein berechtigtes Interesse an diesen Daten nachweist. Das hat der 26. Zivilsenat des Oberlandesgerichts Hamm am 14.07.2017 entschieden und damit das erstinstanzliche Urteil des Landgerichts Bochum vom 27.07.2016 (Az. 6 O 9/16 LG Bochum) bestätigt. Continue reading
admin Under Construction, Malpractice 27. January 6. February 2018 Employee, Information, attending physician, Privacy Policy, hospital operator, privacy protection, home address	0 comments
The plaintiff, who has been hospitalized in the defendant's facility, claims damages for these and two doctors employed by her. Initially, one of the doctors could not file the lawsuit under the clinic's name because the plaintiff's representative had not given the name correctly. After correcting the name, the delivery was successful. Nevertheless, the plaintiff requested information from the clinic about the private address of the doctor concerned. This was rejected by the defendant.
The district court dismissed the action. The district court has condemned the defendant for information, because anonymity is not compatible with the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. It allowed the revision. Continue reading
Im ersten Teil des Verfahrens erging zum Anspruchsgrund ein rechtskräftiges Grund- und Teilendurteil des Oberlandesgerichts. In diesem wurde festgestellt, dass die Beklagten als Gesamtschuldner verpflichtet sind, dem Kläger sämtliche Schäden zu ersetzen, die dem Kläger “anlässlich und aufgrund der Behandlung durch die Beklagten nach seiner Geburt” entstanden sind und noch entstehen werden. Im vorliegenden Verfahrensabschnitt ging es um die Höhe des dem Kläger zustehenden Schadensersatzes. Das Oberlandesgericht hat insoweit entschieden, dass sich aus dem vorangegangenen Grundurteil eine Bindungswirkung dahin ergebe, dass die Beklagten nur für die Schäden hafteten, die dem Kläger nach seiner Geburt entstanden seien. Insoweit sei der von den Beklagten verursachte Schadensanteil auf höchstens 20 % zu begrenzen. Continue reading