Abstract
This writing analyzes, from a diachronic point of view, medical malpractice and how it has been impacted by the Italian law 8 March 2017, n. 24. The study shows that recognizing doctors directly liable in tort (art. 7) introduces a separation between form and substance. This separation arises problems of constitutionality in “intramoenia” cases and of juridical qualification regarding the relationship between doctors and healthcare facilities. There are also some critical issues about compulsory professional insurance rule (art. 10); some of them would have been avoided by providing an equivalent obligation for insurance companies. Finally, healthcare facilities' and insurance companies’ right of redress (art. 9) seems inconsistent, because it presupposes a discretionary power to doctors, which has been denied, in general, by the law.
| Translated title of the contribution | [Autom. eng. transl.] Medical responsibility between form and substance after the law of 8 March 2017, n. 24 |
|---|---|
| Original language | Italian |
| Pages (from-to) | 1319-1346 |
| Number of pages | 28 |
| Journal | EUROPA E DIRITTO PRIVATO |
| Publication status | Published - 2018 |
Keywords
- Art. 1228 c.c.
- Assicurazione obbligatoria
- Azione di rivalsa
- Breach of contract
- Burden of proof
- Compulsory insurance
- Fatto illecito
- Inadempimento
- Medical malpractice
- Onere della prova
- Responsabilità medica
- Right of redress
- Tort law