| Abstract [eng] |
The master's thesis analyzes two of the most commonly applied alternative models of compensation for patient harm in practice – the judicial model and the no-fault compensation model. The study examines the normative foundations of their implementation, insights provided by leading scholars, and interpretations found in national case law. The primary aim of the thesis is to determine whether the patient injury compensation model reform implemented in Lithuania has ensured a simpler and more effective mechanism for the protection of patients’ rights. The compensation models are assessed through the lens of effectiveness and accessibility of rights protection for the patient as a weaker party in the legal relationship. The thesis analyzes the main shortcomings of the judicial model and their direct link to the goals set for the 2020 reform. The research reveals that the judicial model applied prior to 2020, based on the need to prove all elements of civil liability, was not an adequate mechanism for the protection of patients’ rights. This model resulted in a complex, lengthy, and unfavorable process for patients, thus significantly limiting their ability to seek redress. The findings of the study show that although the objectives of the 2020 patient injury compensation reform have only been partially achieved, the reform has established preconditions for a quicker and simpler resolution of patient harm compensation cases, especially in instances where such issues are resolved by the Patient Injury Compensation Commission. However, even under the no-fault compensation model, judicial proceedings continue to reflect elements of the traditional civil liability model, with the criterion of fault de facto still present. This partially undermines the reform’s objectives and limits its overall effectiveness. |
