Judicial Assessment of Medical Negligence Liability in Greek Case Law: Empirical and Jurisprudence Analysis of 320 Decisions

Abstract

The present research study analyse the texts of decisions from 320 court cases and empirical descriptions relating to medical negligence, the physician’s specialty, the type of hospital, the consequence of the harm, the criteria for awarding compensation and (where mentioned) the monetary amount. The purpose is to assess the cases through a mainly legal approach combining qualitative Jurisprudence analysis and quantitative mapping. Our research findings shows that:  medical negligence in Greek case law remains a strictly individualised concept; death and permanent disability cases dominate our sample cases and require enhanced scrutiny of causation; obstetric and surgical cases constitute the core of the Jurisprudence material; the compensation amounts cannot be interpreted without distinguishing between costs, non-pecuniary damage, mental anguish and full pecuniary restoration. As a conclusion, the final Jurisprudence picture of our analysis is balanced: The legal order decisively protects the patient’s life, health and personality, without making the physician objectively liable for every adverse outcome. Liability is established where there is breach of duty, evidentiary sufficiency and causal connection. This tripartite structure constitutes the core of the judicial assessment of medical negligence. Finally, we make recommendations for the development of legal standards for improving the reasoning of judicial decisions in medical negligence that must focus on the fundamental points arising from our analysis’ main findings.