The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the Ministry of Health and Community Protection against a ruling rescinding its decision to close a medical center and withdraw its license following a medical negligence caused by a doctor and a nurse. The investigation showed that the doctor described the patient's treatment by phone The NRC nurse told him about her health.
A doctor and a nurse filed a motion requesting the cancellation of the decision of the Medical Licensing Committee and, in reserve, the Medical Liability Committee to examine a complaint filed against them regarding the death of a patient.
The details of the incident began when a patient called the medical center of the doctor (the first defendant) to seek medical care. The nurse (the second defendant) went to the patient's home and found her condition unstable. She was taken to the hospital where she died, Five days passed, and was surprised by the Ministry of Health's decision to close the clinic and withdraw the license.
Laboratory analysis confirmed that the patient was suffering from an allergic reaction caused by the prescribed drug.
A committee, set up by the ministry, conducted an investigation with the nurse, who confirmed that the doctor described the patient three drugs by telephone and injected intravenously with a drug to remove the respiratory congestion on the order of the doctor. She said that she gave the patient two other drugs. The first was an allergy, which she described to the patient as being in a difficult condition. The second drug has already been used with another patient as instructed by the doctor.
After the Medical Liability Committee had called for the rescinding of the contested decision, the Court of First Instance had decided to prevent the plaintiffs from practicing the profession for one year and to cancel the part of the decision to close the medical clinic.
The Ministry of Health resumed this case and the Court of Appeal upheld the first ruling. The Ministry appealed to the Federal Supreme Court for a bill against the law and the papers.
The ministry said in its appeal that "the ruling went in its ruling that the errors attributed to the defendants are the reason for the decision of the administration to withdraw their license from practicing the profession of medicine are mere administrative irregularities, do not amount to medical errors if the alleged negligence and non-adherence to the origins of the profession Medicine is fixed according to the report issued by the Medical Liability Committee and the provisions stipulated by the decree by Federal Law No. (4) of 2016, on medical responsibility, which the referee did not care to scrutinize and neglected his research what is wrong and must be revoked ».
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that once the administrative decision was based on correct facts derived from fixed assets in the papers, the reason for the decision was legitimate, consensual and correct.
The Ministry of Health, in accordance with the powers vested in it to monitor health facilities, and the obligation of doctors and their assistants to the controls prescribed by law, conducted an investigation into the complaint of negligence and medical negligence attributed to the Medical Center, and the violations attributed to the doctor and the nurse. A patient was treated by telephone after the NRC nurse told him about her condition and confirmed that he was used to describing the treatment in this way. The result of this erroneous prescription was that the patient was taken to the hospital. Accordingly, the facts disclosed by the management in her decision to withdraw the For the medical licenses are fixed and correct, and the decision is legitimate and flawless, which did not understand the judgment contested, which must be revoked.
The patient was suffering from an allergic reaction caused by the prescribed medication.