No patient injury compensation to premature baby

An extremely premature child had an arterial catheter inserted in the left arm during intensive care to monitor blood pressure and blood values. The catheter led to reduced blood circulation. This in turn led to extensive tissue death on the child’s left hand, with the loss of all fingers and a medical disability of 40 percent. In the overall assessment under section 2 subsection 3 of the Patient Injury Act, the Supreme Court's majority of four justices found, unlike the Court of Appeal, that there was no basis for awarding compensation for the injury. The monitoring of blood pressure and blood values was a necessary element of intensive care, which in turn was necessary to save the patient’s life. Then, the limit for what the patient must endure is high. The use of arterial catheters was also considered best practice for monitoring. The risk of an injury as great as that the child suffered was very low. On the other hand, the injury was not as great as to suggest with sufficient force that compensation should be awarded. The disproportion between the injury and the suffering that prompted the intensive care was not so clear that the limit for what the patient had to endure was exceeded. One justice dissented and found that the endurance limit had been exceeded. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the State represented by the Patients' Injury Compensation Board. Dissenting opinions 4-1.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Area of law: Patient injury compensation. Section 2 of the Patient Injury Act. 

Key paragraphs: 49, 52–53 and 57–59

Justices: Matheson, Bergh, Thyness, Stenvik, kst. dommer Elsheim