Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Decided 24 Years Later
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
Israel's Supreme Court has finalized a medical malpractice lawsuit from 2002, with President Yitzhak Amit rejecting a final appeal. The case against United Health Kupat Holim and Dr. Yosri Seifi involved allegations of administering an unapproved drug, leading to severe health issues and eventual death. Lower courts found no causal link between the injection and the patient's condition, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court due to the nature of the appeal focusing on factual findings. The plaintiffs' procedural missteps contributed to the case's lengthy resolution, spanning over two decades.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- The Supreme Court finalized a 2002 medical malpractice lawsuit, rejecting a final appeal.
- The case involved allegations of administering an unapproved drug, Histanil, to a patient.
- Lower courts found no causal link between the injection and the patient's subsequent decline and death.
- Procedural failures by the plaintiffs delayed the case's resolution for over two decades.
- The Supreme Court upheld lower court findings on facts and credibility.
- The lawsuit was against United Health Kupat Holim and Dr. Yosri Seifi.
The Supreme Court has definitively closed a medical malpractice case dating back to 2002, with President Yitzhak Amit rejecting a final appeal. Amit noted that procedural failures by the plaintiffs over the years led to the case, concerning events from 2002, only being heard in recent years. The lawsuit was filed against United Health Kupat Holim and Dr. Yosri Seifi.
The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Seifi administered an injection of Histanil, a drug not approved by the Ministry of Health, to their deceased mother on March 8, 2002. They claimed Dr. Seifi diagnosed her with an allergic reaction to olives and instructed her son to purchase the medication. Shortly after the injection, the mother allegedly developed paralysis, lost bowel control, and experienced pain, leading to hospitalization and a decline in her health over the next 12 years until her death.
The plaintiffs further contended that Dr. Seifi failed to properly document the patient's condition before treatment and the details of the treatment itself, including dosage and method. The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court initially dismissed the lawsuit, finding no causal link between the injection and the patient's subsequent medical condition. The court also ruled that Dr. Seifi could not have been expected to know the drug was unapproved and that he did not breach his duty of disclosure, given the need for immediate, life-saving treatment.
The District Court upheld the Magistrate's findings on the facts but reduced the plaintiffs' initial cost award from NIS 44,000 to NIS 10,000, payable only to Kupat Holim. In his decision, Amit stated that the plaintiffs' arguments were based on factual findings and credibility assessments by the lower courts, which are not grounds for a third-instance appeal. He emphasized that appellate courts generally do not intervene in factual and credibility determinations made by trial courts based on direct observation of witnesses and experts, and found no reason to deviate from this rule in this case. The plaintiffs had also raised the question of whether using an unapproved drug constitutes a violation of autonomy and disclosure, but the court found this issue was not central to the lower courts' decisions, which focused on the specific facts.