[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over medical malpractice liability. On February 2, 2024, Liu Shufen was admitted to Hospital A due to a "bladder mass that had been present for over three years", and she had a history of renal insufficiency and moderate anemia. On March 27, while returning to the hospital after an external examination, the left nephrostomy tube accidentally fell out, causing urine leakage. On March 29, the hospital performed an insertion procedure to drain the purulent secretions, but failed to provide timely and effective anti-infection treatment afterward. As a result, Liu Shufen's condition deteriorated rapidly, and she died of complications such as septic shock and urinary tract infections on May 23. Her daughter, Liu Min, entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on her behalf.Bai JiaranAttorney representation. Core disputes: hospital's medical treatment errors and the extent of causation, compensation ratio. Applicable legal provisions: relevant laws on medical damage liability. The forensic evaluation determined the extent of causation to be secondary (participation rate of 16%-44%), and the court comprehensively determined that the hospital should bear 25% of the compensation liability.

I. Review of the Case

Patients' families often search for terms such as "Can I claim compensation if the hospital's improper handling leads to death?", "How to determine medical negligence?", and "How to set the compensation ratio for medical damages?". On February 2, 2024, Liu Shufen was admitted to A Hospital for treatment due to "discovery of a bladder mass for more than three years". Prior to that, she had been treated for renal insufficiency and moderate anemia at multiple hospitals. In December 2023, she also underwent bilateral renal puncture and drainage + TURBT biopsy at B Hospital, but no cancer cells were detected. A Hospital diagnosed her with multiple conditions including bladder cancer, renal insufficiency, and moderate anemia, and immediately initiated integrated Chinese and Western medicine treatment.

On March 26, Hospital A advised Liu Shufen to undergo surgery at the Oncology Hospital as soon as possible, informing her that she needed to go there in person to complete the preoperative examination and was permitted to seek medical treatment outside the hospital. On March 27, when she returned to the hospital for the examination, the left nephrostomy tube accidentally fell out, accompanied by a large amount of urine leakage. On March 29, the hospital performed nephrostomy tube placement treatment, draining about 100ml of purulent secretions during the surgery. However, no effective anti-infection measures were taken after the surgery. After that, Liu Shufen's condition deteriorated rapidly, with symptoms including lethargy, hypovolemia, and worsening infection. On April 3, she was transferred to the ICU, and ultimately died of complications such as septic shock and urinary tract infection on May 23.

Daughter Liu Min found many suspicious points in the diagnosis and treatment of Hospital A—confusing and contradictory medical records, failure to record key changes in the patient's condition, continued use of known allergy-inducing drugs, and delayed implementation of important treatment measures. She firmly believed that her mother's death was not entirely due to her own illness and decided to seek justice through legal channels, entrusting the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for herBai JiaranThe lawyer is representing this case.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Medical specialties are highly professional, and the underlying conditions are complex.The patient was admitted to the hospital in the end stage of malignant tumors with multiple complications. How to distinguish the proportion of responsibility between the patient's own disease and medical negligence is the key issue.
  • Focus II: Identification of the specific negligent acts committed by the hospital.The causal relationship and contributory factors between the death outcomes and factors such as the failure to deal with the tube extrusion in a timely manner, the use of allergy medication, and the non-standardized medical record writing need to be clarified.
  • Focus Three: Disputes over the determination of losses.The medical party objects to multiple losses as "unrelated to medical negligence", and needs to provide sufficient factual and legal basis for this claim.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The party concerned (Liu Min) claimed that:Liu Min claimed that A Hospital committed errors in the diagnosis and treatment, including insufficient diagnostic basis, lack of risk disclosure, serious improper handling of fistula tube extrusion, violation of allergy contraindications, and disorganized medical records, which were causally related to her mother's death. She requested the hospital to compensate for medical expenses, hospitalization subsidies, nursing fees, death compensation, funeral expenses, appraisal fees, transportation fees, accommodation fees, and compensation for mental distress, among others.

The defendant's (Hospital A) position:They disputed the complexity of the patient's underlying condition and the progression of his own disease as the main cause of death, and objected to the plaintiff's claims for various losses on the grounds that they were "unrelated to medical negligence".

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Bai JiaranThe lawyer formulated the strategy of "identifying mistakes, strengthening evidence, reinforcing causality, and striving for a reasonable compensation ratio": comprehensively reviewing the medical records to identify contradictions — insufficient diagnostic basis (no clear pathology for diagnosing bladder cancer), lack of risk disclosure (no sufficient warning about the risks of drainage tubes during outpatient examinations), serious inappropriate treatment (no record of the patient's condition after the drainage tube fell out for several days, and no timely examination or treatment), violation of allergy contraindications (knowing the patient was allergic to vitamin C but still repeatedly using vitamin C-containing drugs), and chaotic medical record writing (gender errors, diagnostic errors, and time contradictions). The lawyer assisted in applying for a judicial appraisal, and the Beijing XX Medical Technology Co., Ltd. Judicial Appraisal Institute confirmed that A Hospital was at fault in the medical treatment and that there was a causal relationship between the fault and the death outcome. It suggested that the causality was secondary and the hospital's involvement was 16% to 44%. In response to objections to the damages, the lawyer supplemented evidence such as caregiver performance certificates, explanations of the relevance of online purchased items, and corresponding records of transportation and accommodation to clarify the reasonableness of various damages.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that if a patient is harmed during the medical treatment process and the medical institution and its medical staff are at fault, the medical institution shall bear the liability for compensation. According to the appraisal, A Hospital committed medical negligence during Liu Shufen's treatment, and there is a causal relationship between the negligence and the death outcome. The court suggested that the causality of the negligence was secondary and the degree of participation was 16%-44%. Taking into account A Hospital's negligent treatment behavior, the degree of negligence, and Liu Shufen's own medical condition, the court determined that A Hospital should bear 25% of the compensation liability and ordered Beijing A Hospital to compensate Liu Min for various losses (such as medical expenses of 145,909.69 yuan × 25% = 36,477.42 yuan, etc.). This case applies the relevant legal provisions on medical damage liability. Attorney Bai successfully secured fair compensation for the client through professional representation.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Bai JiaranThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202211467472, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Beijing Henglu Law Firm specializes in representing clients in various civil and commercial, administrative, and criminal cases, and has a team of experienced professional lawyers. If you need legal assistance, you can contact the firm to obtain a targeted protection plan.

VI. Common Questions About Medical Malpractice Liability Disputes - FAQ

  1. Q: If the patient's condition is serious, can the hospital compensate them even if the hospital is at fault?
    A:Yes. Medical damages are determined based on fault and causation. Even if the patient has a serious underlying condition, as long as the hospital is at fault and there is a causal relationship between the fault and the damages, the hospital should still compensate proportionally.
  2. Q: Is the hospital liable if they prescribed me medication that caused an allergic reaction?
    A:Knowing that the patient is allergic but still using drugs containing this ingredient is a violation of the prohibition of medical treatment and can be used as an important basis for determining the hospital's fault and compensation.
  3. Q: How is the compensation ratio for medical malpractice determined?
    A:The reasonableness is determined by the judicial appraisal (e.g., secondary, 16%-44% participation), and the court determines the specific proportion (e.g., 25%) based on the degree of fault and the person's own medical condition within the range.
  4. Q: Is it a mistake if the drainage tube falls out of the hospital and is not dealt with in time?
    A:Yes. If the drainage tubes and other pipelines are dislodged and not recorded, inspected, and handled in a timely manner, it constitutes a failure to provide postoperative care and treatment, and can be included in the determination of medical negligence.
  5. Q: Is it beneficial for a claim if the medical records are written incorrectly?
    A:It is advantageous. Errors in medical records, misdiagnoses, and inconsistencies in time reflect non-standard medical treatment, which can corroborate the hospital's fault and the degree of its negligence, thereby strengthening the claim for compensation.