
CMS România | Romanian court rules pre-existing conditions of patients do not excuse provider liability for nosocomial infections
15 Februarie 2023
CMS RomâniaFor more information on this decision and healthcare liability in Romania, contact your CMS client partner or local CMS experts: Horia Draghici and Andrei Cristescu.
![]() |
The High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania ruled that healthcare establishments may not avoid liability for nosocomial infections that a patient acquires during hospitalisation, irrespective of the individual's pre-existing health condition. The only chance for a healthcare provider to avoid liability is to provide evidence that the patient already carried the pathogen before admission to the establishment.
The case
An individual identified as "Mr. B" was hospitalised in Timisoara for heart disease. During hospitalisation, he died from a nosocomial infection. His wife sued the hospital and claimed damages, arguing that the hospital is liable for the infection. The first court and the appeal court dismissed the claim, but the High Court of Cassation and Justice (i.e. Romania’s Supreme court) decided that the hospital is liable for the death of the patient caused by a nosocomial infection.
The case
An individual identified as "Mr. B" was hospitalised in Timisoara for heart disease. During hospitalisation, he died from a nosocomial infection. His wife sued the hospital and claimed damages, arguing that the hospital is liable for the infection. The first court and the appeal court dismissed the claim, but the High Court of Cassation and Justice (i.e. Romania’s Supreme court) decided that the hospital is liable for the death of the patient caused by a nosocomial infection.
Law no. 95/2006 regarding the reform of the healthcare system, Article 655 (1) a)
The decision was based on Art. 655 para. (1) letter a) of Romania's Law no. 95/2006 that provides: “Public or private healthcare establishments, as providers of healthcare services, shall be civilly liable, according to general law provisions, for damages caused during the activity of prevention, diagnosis or treatment, if they are the consequence: (a) nosocomial infections, unless an external cause beyond the control of the healthcare establishment is proved. (…)”
Hence, in order to trigger liability on the basis of the above legal provision, the claimant must only prove that the injury was caused by a nosocomial infection during the activity of prevention, diagnosis or treatment, while the only way in which the defendant can be exonerated from liability is to prove an external cause beyond the establishment's control.
Proof of negligence is not required.
The law does not establish the meaning of the "external cause beyond the control of the healthcare establishment", so it is subject to interpretation of Romanian courts.
Application in this case
The first court and the appeal court considered that by weakening the immune system the pre-existing health condition favoured the nosocomial infection and that this represented an external cause that could not be controlled by the hospital, as provided in Article 655 (1) a). This decision was rendered even though the evidence indicated that the death of Mr. B was caused by the nosocomial infection acquired in the hospital.
In the second appeal, the High Court of Cassation and Justice invalidated the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for retrial. The High Court of Cassation and Justice concluded that the state of immunological vulnerability, caused by previous diseases, is irrelevant and does not constitute an external cause in the meaning of Article 655 (1) a) of Law no. 95/2006.
The reasoning was that this legal provision establishes an objective tort liability of healthcare establishments for damages caused to patients by nosocomial infections as a consequence of the providers' failure to comply with their legal safety obligations. The risk of nosocomial infections belongs to the healthcare establishment and cannot be transferred to the patient.
To avoid the introduction of pathogens within the healthcare establishment, patients are examined at the time of admission to the health establishment. After that moment, the medical conditions of patients come under the power and control of the healthcare establishment, which has an obligation to guarantee the prevention of nosocomial infections. When the damages are caused by a nosocomial infection (i.e. the determinant cause), the liability of the healthcare establishment is triggered. In this case, the contributing causes such as a weak immune system is of no relevance.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice also established that the only situation where the previous diseases can be relevant is when, at admission to the healthcare establishment, the patient is the carrier of the pathogen, which the healthcare establishment could not discover in the framework of its medical investigations. As this exception was not applicable, the High Court decided to admit the final appeal.
Comment
The case underlines that Article 655 (1) a) of Law no. 95/2006 provides an objective tort liability, as it is not necessary to prove negligence. Furthermore, it provides a benchmark for determining whether a particular circumstance constitutes an "external cause beyond the control of the healthcare establishment". Hence, it shows that if the healthcare establishment is to avoid liability, it needs to provide evidence that the source of the patient's nosocomial infection occurred outside of the healthcare establishment. In this case, the infection must be discovered before the patient's admission into the healthcare establishment.
In particular, the decision shows that the pre-existing health condition does not exonerate the establishment from liability. (As a rule, all patients admitted to healthcare establishments have pre-existing health conditions). Therefore, the standard of proof for healthcare establishments to avoid liability for nosocomial infections is high and healthcare establishments should put in place procedures for early screening of newly admitted patients to discover pathogen agents.
Additionally, the reasoning of the High Court of Cassation and Justice confirmed the high level of legal protection of patients that acquire nosocomial infection during admission to healthcare establishments.
For more information on this decision and healthcare liability in Romania, contact your CMS client partner or local CMS experts: Horia Draghici and Andrei Cristescu.
This article has been co-authored by Diana Ceausu, Lawyer.
Publicitate pe BizLawyer? |
![]() ![]() |
Articol 744 / 4584 | Următorul articol |
Publicitate pe BizLawyer? |
![]() |

BREAKING NEWS
ESENTIAL
LegiTeam: Zamfirescu Racoţi Vasile & Partners recrutează avocat definitiv Achiziții & Corporate| Consultanță
D&B David și Baias confirmă reziliența M&A: achiziții strategice dominante, mecanisme flexibile, grafic de lucru modelat de conformare și componenta tehnică. Echipa livrează soluții prompte în proiecte cu arhitectură complexă, aliniind interesele vânzătorilor cu obiectivele investitorilor și orchestrând integrarea post-closing | Anda Rojanschi (Partener): „Tranzacția de succes este aceea în care cele două afaceri se integrează după finalizarea deal-ului”. O regulă care devine rutină operațională prin rigoare, colaborare și coordonare interdisciplinară
Schoenherr lansează a cincea ediție a concursului de eseuri „law, sweet law‟, cu premii totale de 21.000 lei
Filip & Company a asistat ACP Credit în acordarea unei investiții de capital grupului Dental Elite Clinics. Alexandra Manciulea (partener) și Rebecca Marina (counsel) au coordonat echipa
ZRVP aniversează în 2025 trei decenii de avocatură | Cosmin Vasile, Managing Partner: “Am crescut organic, am construit fără grabă și fără artificii, și am ajuns aici pentru că am rămas fideli profesiei și valorilor ei. Rămânem, după 30 de ani, cu aceleași ținte primordiale: perfecțiunea juridică și formarea de avocați care să ne împărtășească pasiunea, valorile și viziunea”
Cum văd analiștii Mergermarket piața de M&A și activitatea firmelor de avocați | 9 luni cu motorul turat în M&A: Fuziunile și achizițiile la nivel global au ajuns la 3,4 trilioane USD, companiile din UE preferă consolidarea regională, tehnologia conduce, energia și sectorul financiar împing megadeal-urile, private equity își reia ofensiva. În clasamentele juridice, CMS rămâne în Top 10 global și pe locul 2 în Europa, iar Schoenherr stă pe podium în Europa Centrală și de Est
Practica de Concurență de la Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații rămâne etalon pe piața locală, cu o echipă evidențiată în ghidurile internaționale și performanță constantă în mandatele încredințate | Raluca Vasilache (Partener): Ultimul an a fost cu adevărat special, având privilegiul de a lucra în câteva tranzacții stimulante din punct de vedere profesional. A crescut considerabil practica în domeniul autorizării investițiilor străine și se remarcă o pondere mai mare a investigațiilor
Mitel & Asociații se remarcă în practica de Concurență prin rigoare și sincronizare, oferind clienților remedii țintite, viteză procedurală și certitudine în calendarul de closing | Sub coordonarea partenerului Șerban Suchea, firma asigură trasee clare de conformare, maximizează predictibilitatea autorizărilor și păstrează direcția tranzacțiilor într-un peisaj normativ exigent și bine articulat
CMS, implicată în proiectul câștigător al premiului „Investiția Anului” în cadrul SEE Property Forum Awards 2025 pentru al doilea an consecutiv
Bohâlțeanu & Asociații a stat alături de asociații Auto Brand SRL în tranzacția prin care BPW Group a intrat pe piața locală. Ionuț Bohâlțeanu (Managing Partner) și Anda Călin (Managing Associate), în prim plan
LegiTeam: Junior lawyers 0-1 years - Dispute Resolution Practice | GNP Guia Naghi and Partners
CMS CAMERON MCKENNA NABARRO OLSWANG LLP SCP is looking for junior lawyers
Citeste pe SeeNews Digital Network
-
BizBanker
-
BizLeader
- in curand...
-
SeeNews
in curand...