Our research is aimed at obtaining the central coordinates of the system for determining the professional responsibility of the doctor in accordance with Law no. 95/2006. With this approach, we began with a brief introduction to the problem, defining the doctor’s responsibilities in a medical act and defining the legal concept of medical negligence. We then addressed the issues related to the initiation and conduct of proceedings before the Monitoring and Professional Competence Commission in cases of abuse of office. Finally, we came to the conclusion about some shortcomings of the procedure under consideration.
1. Definition, regulation, general considerations
In the practice of the profession, according to the Code of Ethics, the doctor is obliged to protect the physical and mental health of a person, relieve suffering, respect human life and dignity without discrimination, observing deontological and legal norms that establish the minimum moral standards characteristic of exercise. this profession. Violation of such ethical standards, as it jeopardizes the values protected by law, may entail civil liability of the doctor for abuse of office.
Medical malpractice is defined in Art. 642 of Law No. 95/2006 on health care reform as a professional misconduct in the execution of a medical or medico-pharmaceutical act, causing harm to a patient, including on the civil liability of medical personnel and a provider of medical, sanitary or pharmaceutical products and services. Personal injury attorney Paul Marietta can tell you all about the rules.
Explaining the definition given in the legal text, it can be stated that medical malpractice is unprofessional behavior inferior to the standards of competence and public understanding established and adopted by the professional body on the basis of negligence or incompetence and the provision of insufficient medical care with negative consequences for the patient.
The physician is civilly liable for damages caused by error, including negligence, recklessness, or insufficient medical knowledge in the exercise of the profession through individual actions for prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
Thus, in order to prosecute violating doctors, both deliberate illegal actions and crimes committed in the account are practiced. While a physician’s guilt may represent a form of intent, most acts of malpractice are committed through guilt, which is often the guilt of leading the medical staff.
Article 668-674 of Chapter XV of Law No. 95/2006 establishes a special procedure for determining cases of professional liability for doctors, pharmacists and other persons in the field of health care. It should be pointed out that this procedure concerns only the doctor’s civil liability. There are 673 couples in art. (2) The law expressly provides that this procedure for determining cases of abuse of office does not preclude free access to justice in accordance with common law. Read it.
In accordance with the legal provisions mentioned above, patients who believe they have suffered such harm can apply to the Abuse Monitoring and Professional Competence Committees organized at the level of the public health departments of each district and Bucharest. This commission may be notified by a person who considers himself a victim of an abuse of office committed in the course of prevention, diagnosis and treatment, or a surviving deceased as a result of neglect of prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
- Proceedings before the Monitoring and Professional Competence Commission in cases of abuse of office
It should be pointed out from the outset that the right to claim compensation for damages by a person deemed to be a victim of an abuse of office is prohibited for three years from the date of the incident.
Additional resources: ./blog/7-secrets-of-successful-personal-injury-lawyers
The launch of this procedure, provided for in Art. 668-674 of Law no. 95/2006 occurs with the notification of the specific situation to the Commission in order to establish the presence or absence of a malpractice case by persons who consider themselves victims of a malpractice act or the successors of that person.