For almost ten years, Robert L. (all names have been changed) has wondered how it came to be that his mother is in a wheelchair. After Irmgard L. fell ill with shingles, she suffered from unpleasant nerve inflammation where the painful rash had formed. In January 2013, she therefore went to the pain outpatient clinic in Großhadern Clinic. The doctors are said to have given her hope.
A hollow needle was pushed into Irmgard L.’s back between the seventh and eighth thoracic vertebrae. A so-called peridural catheter was placed through the needle and drugs were injected to alleviate the neuritis that Irmgard L. was still suffering from after surviving herpes zoster. However, serious complications arose during the treatment.
Since then, the now 83-year-old widow from Munich has been paralyzed from the chest down. She can only move her arms a little, nothing more, says her son, who is also her supervisor. His mother always did sports and always took care of herself. Since the treatment in the Großhadern Clinic, however, she has been in need of nursing care and needs help around the clock.
This is a “challenge for everyone,” says Robert L. But the 49-year-old isn’t just worried about his disabled mother. What’s more, he wants to know what happened during her treatment. He read the specialist medical literature and finally hired a lawyer. Robert L. is convinced that the doctors made mistakes and has sued the Munich University Hospital for damages of 165,000 euros.
Last week his mother’s case, a so-called medical liability matter, was heard before the 9th civil chamber at the Munich I district court. Robert L. had expected a lot from the process. The doctor who was responsible for treating his mother was questioned as a witness.
She assured that Irmgard L. had been properly informed about the risks of the procedure used on her, including the fact that she was being given an unapproved drug, which, however, was preferred for “pharmacological reasons” such as her condition. This was not a mistake, confirmed one of the two medical experts invited by the court to the hearing. The selection of drugs in the present case is “quite common”, including those for which “there is no approval”.
And the second expert, a specialist in neurosurgery, also assured me that the treating physicians had not made any mistakes. How the damage to Irmgard L.’s spinal cord, a so-called paraplegic syndrome, could come about was “completely beyond me”, according to the expert. He had “never seen” a case like that of Irmgard L.
“None of the experts can explain what happened,” the presiding judge summed up after more than three hours of hearing and said to Robert L. and his lawyer: “We’re not getting to the point where the lawsuit is successful.” The hospital representative then contacted Robert L. directly and assured him that everyone could only feel sorry for his mother. It is still unclear whether the insurance company of the Munich University Hospital is willing to voluntarily pay compensation in some form. The clinic’s attorney said he would be speaking to the insurance company.
Robert L. had hoped the medical experts would be able to explain exactly what might have gone wrong with his mother’s treatment. “I wanted to end the matter properly,” said the 49-year-old. But at the end of the hearing he didn’t give the impression that he could do it. The court will announce a decision in mid-September.