No patient injury compensation for nerve for nerve damage after surgery

During surgery for urinary incontinence, a woman suffered nerve damage that caused chronic pain. The Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeal, concluded that the conditions for compensation under the exception provision in section 2 subsection 3 of the Patient Injury Act, were not met. The injury had resulted in a medical disability that was lower than the indicative minimum level of 35 percent. The operation was not medically important, but it was essential for the woman's quality of life. Little was lacking for the injury to be considered unexpected. However, more emphasis was placed on the fact that the damage was not very serious than on the fact that the risk of the damage was low. In an overall assessment, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no such clear disproportion between the injury and the suffering that prompted the operation that the limit for what the patient had to accept had been exceeded. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment was dismissed.

Read the judgment (Norwegian only)

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

Key paragraphs: 39–41, 51 and 55–56

Justices: Øie, Bergsjø, Ringnes, Thyness, Steinsvik