THE SUPREME COURT ADMITTED A RE-CONSIDERATION OF CLAIM

A legal dispute took place in connection with the widow's claims to recover moral damage for the death of her husband. The district hospital was the defendant.

The circumstances of the case took place six years ago, when, after arriving at an ambulance call, a paramedic made two injections and gave sleeping pills to the patient, but she did not measure blood pressure and did not make an electrocardiogram, despite the fact that the patient complained of heart pain.

After the departure of the ambulance, man felt ill again, but he was not able to wait for the second arrival of the doctors and died.

Two years later, the widow initiated a case for the recovery of moral damage from the hospital. The grounds were the provision of poor-quality medical care.

However, the district court dismissed the claims, considering the plaintiff's arguments unproven.

Afterwards, a criminal case was initiated against the paramedic under the article on causing death by negligence when performing official duties. As part of the investigative actions, an expert examination was appointed, which established the guilt of the defendant in the commission of the crime. However, the criminal case itself was terminated due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

After that, the widow tried to re-initiate the case for the recovery of moral damage, but her claim was rejected due to the identity of the claims.

She got a refusal for re-consideration of the case on the basis of newly discovered circumstances. Then the woman went to court with her daughter, their joint demand was both in compensation for material damage and moral damage.

The district court partially satisfied the claim for the payment of material damage, and also collected part of the non-pecuniary damage in favor of the daughter. The claim of the widow was rejected again, referring to the identity of the dispute. Such a decision was supported by both the appeal and cassation instances. But the woman did not stop and applied to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The panel of judges, considering the case, indicated that the claims of the plaintiff are not identical, since the grounds of the claim are different: in the first case, they were based on the fact of the death of the husband and in the second, the claim was supported by the presence of a forensic examination.

Thus, the highest court restored long-term justice and sent the widow's claim to recover moral damage from the hospital for reconsideration (determination No. 91-КГ20-1-КЗ dated October 19, 2020).