The Federal Supreme Court overturned an appeal judgment that acquitted two doctors accused of wrongly causing a patient’s death, as it indicated that the ruling did not respond to the evidence represented in the report of the Medical Responsibility Committee, which indicated that there was a default due to the delay in performing a catheter.
In the details, the Public Prosecution referred two doctors to the trial on the charge of causing the death of a patient, and this was the result of a breach of what is imposed on them by the recognized medical principles.
The first instance court ruled in absentia of the doctors' acquittal of what was attributed to them, then the Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling.
The Public Prosecution appealed the cassation judgment, and stated that the ruling violated the law and erred in its application and violated the papers, as it ruled that the defendants were acquitted of what was assigned to them without discussing the report of the Medical Responsibility Committee and the supplementary report of the committee itself, which he mentioned as a medical failure to not perform catheters in time And repeated chest pain, and contradicts the established practices, and that one of the accused bears responsibility for the delay in not informing the alternate consultant of the seriousness of the case, and if the ruling ruled innocence without saying his opinion regarding what came in the report issued by the Medical Responsibility Committee, it is defective in what necessitates its veto.
For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that while the trial court was required to acquit innocence whenever it questions the validity of attributing the charge to the defendant due to insufficient evidence of evidence, this is conditional on its ruling to include evidence that it has examined the case and surrounded its circumstances with insight and insight, and balanced between them Among the evidences, the defendant won the defense of the accused, or the suspicion included it in the validity of the elements of the evidence, and it must show the existing evidence and give its opinion thereon, and that the reasons on which it relied in its judiciary would lead to what was determined by the judgment.
She pointed out that it is clear from reading the appeals blogs that he spent the accused acquitted of the accusation against them without taking note of the facts of the case, and without saying his opinion in the evidence represented in the medical responsibility committee report issued in the beginning and the supplementary report, which indicated that there was a failure in the absence of Performing catheters in a timely manner and recurring chest pain with a change in planning, lack of response to drug therapy and a drop in blood circulation, and that delaying the catheter for the second day is considered a medical failure and contradicts the established practices, and the first accused bears responsibility for delay in informing the alternate consultant of the seriousness of the condition, and bears The second defendant is responsible for delaying the catheter for the second day, concluding that the appeal verdict acquitted the defendants without saying his opinion in the two reports issued by the Medical Responsibility Committee, marred by the null and void deficiency, which requires its reversal and confrontation.