The type of epilepsy that affected the young man was resistant to all forms of medication. He had to undergo aexploration video EEG” from Monday June 18, 2012 until Friday June 22. He was hospitalized in the neurology department. His bed was permanently filmed and the sound recorded. An electroencephalogram was also recorded. Medication was reduced to promote epileptic seizures.
On June 20, Hans was found dead in his bed. Hans died on Tuesday evening shortly before midnight. While he was supposed to be under constant surveillance, the death was not confirmed until seven hours later! “There was therefore, in reality, during the night, no monitoring of this patient, however at risk”, pointed out the court. “There were no precautions (even the anti-choking pillows for example), no monitoring of the “video surveillance” images, this video having in fact nothing of a surveillance, but constituting only a video without particularity, nor even a regular passage in the room”, noted the court. The judge considered that the CHU had “lacked foresight and vigilance in the organization of its system for monitoring video-EEG patients and more particularly the patient Hans X.”
We advised the mother not to sleep there
The whole family was shocked by these events. Especially since the mother of the young man had asked to be able to spend the night in the hospital with her son and that it was not recommended to him. “He was told he would be under surveillance when he was never supervised”, underlined Me Evrard, lawyer for the civil parties. “They try to mourn as best they can. Their life no longer has any meaning. They must continue to live for the little brother who remains.”
The lawyer asked the court to award damages that take into account the duration of the damage and not a lump sum. He requested a sum of 103,000 euros for the dad and 113,000 euros for the mother. He pleaded a sum of 54,000 euros for the brother of 32,000 euros for the grandfather and 38,000 euros for the grandmother of Hans. On the side of the CHU insurance, Me Dubuisson asked for the reduction of the sums. “Lhe insurance is surprised that damage is claimed which corresponds to an injured person who retains a disability of 20 per cent. Ask yourself the question, Judge, if you are given the choice between living until the end of your life with 20 percent disability or the loss of your child? As for me, I don’t have to think long. I know exactly that I preferred to live with 20 percent disability“, finished Me Evrard. The court will make its decision next February.
