An Analysis On The Case Of The Medical Damage Compensation

Medical damage compensation is a difficulty in tort damage lawsuit. In the case,Doctor Li sells15pills of vermicide to the patient Nie without any instruction onprescription, but shortly after buying the pills, the patient Nie was diagnosed withmeningitis. Therefore, the patient tends to take a claim for the medical damagecompensation to the hospital, and then a dispute arises. The arguments of the case aremainly about such following parts: whether Tort Liability Act shall apply to the case,the accuser has performed the burden of proof conscientiously and the defendant shallbear compensation liability or not. To a certain degree, in the medical damagecompensation lawsuits there is the selectivity in the law application, the particularityin the distribution of burden of proof as well as the complexity in the confirmation oncompensation liability. First of all, before the Tort Liability Act came into effect, thereexisted duality in the law application of medical damage compensation lawsuits thatboth Regulations on Medical Malpractice Handling and The General Civil Law can beapplied to confirm the items and quantities of the damage compensation, as a result,the compensation results generated by different applicative laws or regulations aregreat disparities. Since the case analyzed in the thesis does not belong to the medicalnegligence, furthermore, both the tort and tort consequence came up before the TortLiability Act being carried out, it The General Civil Law shall applies to it. Secondly,according to Some Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence on CivilProcedures on the burden of proof of medical damage acts, if the causal relationshipbetween medical acts and damage consequence does not exist, nor does the medicaltreatment faults either, so medical institutions or staff shall bear the burden ofproof,which means that the patient shall only bear the burden of proof for the medicalacts as well as damages by medical institutions and staff. In this case, both thehospital and patient have performed the burden of proof properly.The patient Niehas proved the objective existence of the medical acts and patient’s damage, WhileDoctor Li can’t provide full proof to testify his claim.Thirdly, according to thetheories of civil law, remedies go with damages, and burdens go with faults. On thebasis of ascertained case facts, there is a causal relationship between the defendantLi’s medical fault and the accuser’s damage consequence, thus Li shall bear the maindamage burden on compensation. Because Nie buys bills blindly without prescription,and shall bear a certain responsibility for the damage consequence, Li’s civil liability can be mitigated. According to the rules of objectivity and fairness in this case,the accuser and the defendant shall respectively bear the corresponding burden ofcivil compensation.