Case Study

Facts: Bacalim Victor and Cojocoari Teodor are both doctors. Bacalim Victor is a family doctor
he was called by a mother of a child that felt sick, he gave a medical consultation through a
telephne call, without visiting the patient, he prescribed some drugs. The state of the child got
worse. Cojocari is a pedetrician in the the Donduseni Hospital, were the same child was
hospitalized. Both doctors are accused of negligence in their duties, without ensuring the
neccesary examination, supervision and treatment to the patient. The state of the child got even
worse, he was discharged in a critical condition and soon died. The 2 accused doctors affirm that
the death occurred because of a vaccine that the child was vaccinated a day before the symptoms
accured. The mother of the child thinks that doctors arent guilty.
Law : The prosecuttion qualified the actions and inactions of the accused according to art. 213,
b) of Criminal Code, Infringement through negligence of the rules and methods of medical
assistance that caussed the death of the patient
Grounds: In the first instance the court found that there were not present the elements of the
crime. The Appeal Court maintained this decision. Thus in the court as evidences were brought
more medical expertises made by different experts or group of experts. Based on some of this
expertises the prosecutor appealed. However in its judgement the court argued that different
expertises had different conclusions. Some of them concluded that both doctors did everything
possible and offered complete assistance to the patient and there is not possible to establish the
link between these actions and the death of the patient. Other one stated that even if the accused
took all the necessary measures it was not sure that the child would survive, because of the
severity of the disease and that actually errors were committed by all the doctors at all the stages.
Other expertises stated that there were necessary other researches, tests and examinations to be
done in order to detect the disease at an earlier stage, still it didnt state whose responsibility was
to do this, it didnt identify the concrete doctor that had such a responsibility. Thus, as a result of
different expertises, the court asserts that it is not possible to convinct the defendants when there
is no certainty, the rulling can not be based on suppositions. Also the defence and this opinion
was sustained by the court, stated that the doctor wasnt asked to visit the patient, when he ws
asked the other day, he reacted and came immediately. Also the prosecutor failed to point on the
exact regulations that where infringed by the accused, thing which is necessary in the case of the
crime described by art. 213. Even if in the appeal court he based his appeal on the Law on health
protection he didnt concretized the exact norm, in this case the objective side og the crime is
missing. In conclusion, the court established that there was noth present neither the objective
side, nor the subjective side, because the conclusions of the expertises exclude the guilt of the
defendants and as a result the appeal was refused.