On 29 october, journalist liu li, correspondent wu wenjun, and sidi reported that two days after the dog had been taken to the hospital, the owner had taken care of the dog and died that night. Is the clinic responsible for this
Recently, a dispute concerning property damages for pet medical care was heard by the shanghai court of justice。
Ms. Chen raised a 10-year-old teddy dog named dudu, who had a long history of bad appetite and went to the defendant's pet clinic for examination. Ms. Chen was received by the doctor at the accused's clinic and was kept at the dudu on the same day. However, after two days of treatment, the situation in the dudu has deteriorated rather than improved. After communication, ms. Chen decided to take dudu home and take care of it. It was not surprising that dudu died at home that night。
After that, ms. Chen learned that the “prosecutor” who had been diagnosed with dudu had not yet obtained a certificate of professional veterinary qualifications and that there had been several changes in the prescription form for the diagnosis, that there were fewer or missing medicines, and that there was a serious medical error, which was an error。
In this regard, ms. Chen complained about the defendant's clinic, which was verified by the market monitoring authority and which gave an administrative warning to the defendant's pet clinic and a fine of $2,000。
For various reasons, the defendant's pet clinic refunded all the expenses paid by ms. Chen. However, ms. Chen continued to feel that she was not enough to compensate for the mental damage caused by the lost dog, and she appealed to the court to seek compensation for the various damages of $50,000。
In court, ms. Chen cited article 55 of the law of the people's republic of china on tort liability: “the medical staff shall inform the patient of the medical condition and the medical measures taken during medical treatment. If surgery, special examination or special treatment is required, the medical staff shall inform the patient in a timely manner of the medical risks, alternative medical programmes, etc., and obtain his or her written consent; if it is not appropriate to inform the patient, he or she shall inform his or her next of kin and obtain his or her written consent. The medical institution shall be liable if the medical personnel fail to meet the preceding obligation to cause damage to the patient.”
The defendant's pet clinic argued that one of the employees, although not registered as a professional veterinarian, had the relevant professional qualifications. The defendant was also subject to administrative penalties for breach of trade regulations, which did not imply liability for legal medical damage. Also, the plaintiff's dog is over 10 years old and the normal dog is between 10 and 15 years of age, which is within its normal range. In addition, the plaintiff did not establish a causal link between the death of the dog and the medical treatment。
The court held that the dispute over liability for medical damage provided for in our tort liability act was strictly limited: the “patient” in article 54 was a natural person and did not include animals. While there is a special emotion between pets and their owners, in legal terms they are still an attribute of “objects” and a category of property. When a dispute arose between ms. Chen and the defendant's pet clinic, ms. Chen had the option of holding the defendant liable for breach of contract on the basis of her contractual relationship with the pet clinic, or of claiming tort on the basis of damage to her property. It should be noted that this category of tort liability is a general tort (as distinct from special torts, such as liability for medical damage)。
The court found that the pet dog, dudu, had been buried by ms. Chen immediately after his death at home without the conditions for an autopsy, that the plaintiff had no other evidence of a causal link between his death and the defendant's medical treatment, or between the staff member's lack of qualifications and his death. The confusion in the management of medical records does not in itself mean a violation. Nor did ms. Chen provide evidence of a causal link between the confusion in the custody of the medical records and the death of her pet dog。
The court therefore held that the plaintiff had rejected all of the plaintiff's claims for lack of evidence to establish the causal link。
Following the entry into force of the judgement in the case, the shanghai court of justice issued a judicial recommendation to the defendant's pet clinic requesting a correction in respect of the salient picture of the pet medical profession in the case. Upon receipt of a judicial recommendation from the shanghai court of justice, the defendant's pet clinic indicated that it would regulate and overhaul its medical activities。
