The court withdrew several times to deliberate, and in the end the presiding judge Johannes Brose made it clear: “If the plaintiff had told us here today what he told us on the phone, we would have dismissed the lawsuit.” It was about an event that occurred in the emergency room of the Ebersberg district clinic in summer 2020: A man from the Ebersberg district accused the clinic, more precisely the nurse who was caring for him at the time, of providing him with the help of repositioning a bed in Refusing a wheelchair – he fell and injured his knee. The man is now proceeding under civil law against the district clinic, on Tuesday the trial took place in front of the Munich II district court. In the end, the lawsuit was not dismissed; instead, the process will continue in a few weeks with an expert opinion.
“We are concerned with how it can come to such different descriptions,” said Judge Brose after he and the two adjunct judges had returned from the last consultation interruption. Because the nurse, whose behavior the plaintiff complained, described the incident in the run-up to the hearing in a significantly different way.
Accordingly, she instructed the plaintiff, who was brought to the clinic by a relative after a bicycle fall, how he could first get from the wheelchair to the couch for further examination – the man, born in 1997, weighs 130 kilos. That worked. When the plaintiff, after the examination, which did not reveal any injuries or abnormalities on the knee, was supposed to be x-rayed to be on the safe side and had to get back from the couch to the wheelchair, he refused. The nurse’s request would be tantamount to abuse, he needed help. When the nurse pointed out the enormous difference in weight, he became more and more aggressive – he didn’t care about the difference in weight, after all it would be her job to help him. Then he deliberately let himself go.
The plaintiff disagreed with this version. Since the court had neglected to summon the man and he therefore did not appear in person, he was unceremoniously connected to the trial via his lawyer’s cell phone. When he fell on his bicycle, he suffered a graze on his knee and pain in his hand and knee. But he could have appeared without further ado, the plaintiff emphasized several times. “Then why are you in the hospital at all if you apparently only had a graze?” Asked an associate judge later. Well, the knee would have felt strange, according to the plaintiff.
In the treatment room, he should then transfer himself from the wheelchair to the couch. Although, according to the man, there was not the briefing claimed by the defendant, he managed it without any problems because the wheelchair would have been close enough to the couch. After that, however, to move again, he would have had to hop a good two meters on his sound leg, turn around and let himself fall onto the wheelchair. “I can’t do it alone,” he would have said. “I must have said that four times.”
The nurse would have refused the requested help. “But that is a manageable request,” said the lawyer about her client’s behavior. “But a request does not become an obligation,” replied one of the adjudicating judges. When the plaintiff waited several minutes in vain for help, he finally tried, he said. As soon as he tried to jump he fell and a loud crack in his knee could be clearly heard. “Then I just cried.”
Obviously, this did not seem entirely plausible to the court. “Someone who can perform painlessly does not need any help when performing,” says Richter Brose. Since the plaintiff could not appear in person, it was agreed to call in an expert. This should clarify whether fall prophylaxis was necessary in this case and whether the defendant can exonerate himself.