The insurer of the Madrid Health Service (SERMAS) must pay more than 800,000 euros compensation to a patient for a case of malpractice that left permanent consequences on a 65-year-old woman. The patient, treated at the Puerta del Hierro University Hospital in Majadahonda, was operated on for a small aneurysm, despite the fact that the operation was not recommended, and she was not warned of the risks of the process.
As explained by the El Defensor del Paciente association in a statement, the woman went to the hospital on May 31, 2022. The doctors carried out a endovascular treatment with stent to solve a cerebrovascular aneurysm. The aneurysm was found by chance, since the condition was asymptomatic. This, together with its small size (3×4 millimeters) and the patient’s age (65 years), made it inadvisable to proceed with said treatment.
Despite this, the doctors proceeded with the intervention, without explaining the risks to the affected one. Once the operation was completed, the woman was transferred to the ICU. The next day, the patient “began to experience facial paralysis, hemineglect and left hemiparesis secondary to acute thrombosis as a result of the endovascular treatment, requiring a mechanical thrombectomy with a stent,” explains the Patient Advocate. The woman had suffered a acute ischemic strokewhich left him with serious consequences.
The affected person now has a “serious disability”the association assures: the left side of his body is completely paralyzed, he suffers from cognitive alterations, facial paralysis, he has lost the ability to speak and has sudden mood changes, among other “serious neurological consequences.”
For her lawyer, Álvaro Sardinero, the case presents double negligence, since the operation was not only unnecessary, but the patient was not informed of the risks nor signed any consent for the intervention. “The result of both negligence has led to terrible damage that has led to a 91% disabilitywith the need for help from a third person,” highlights the statement.
The Court of First Instance number 51 of Madrid was in charge of analyzing the case. In the civil ruling, handed down on July 7 and made public this Monday, the judge considered the medical performance of the Madrid hospital “defective.” “It does not exist in the patient’s medical history or in the hospital documentation nothing that allows us to think thatprior to the interventionthe patient will be informed of the therapeutic alternatives and the risks that the operation entailed,” the resolution details.
The judge considers that there is not enough evidence to prove that the patient was informed, even though the doctor understood that there was consent. “For reasons that are unknown, there is no record of the aforementioned information, a lack of record that must result in detriment to the defendant,” the ruling highlights.
Although initially the courts set the compensation to be paid to the patient for malpractice at 800,000 euros, a review of the calculations has caused the judge to raise at 821,166.96 euros the total amount to be paid to the affected party.
