Judicialização da saúde com ênfase na repercussão das infecções hospitalares no Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais no período de 2001 a 2013

Abstract

Hospitals are described as service works on the health area, and because regulated by the Consumer Defense Code, they are liable for damages by means of legal procedures. Currently flaws have been seen either in the supplying of those services or in their ideal conditions for health assistance, and therefore hospitals become objectively responsible when hospital infection occurs. Besides the growing movement into jurisdictional tutelage, the search for the repair of damages due to hospital infection is spread throughout courts with repairing issues against hospitals that cause harm to their consumers. This is because the countrys Rights Democracy predicts the Right to Health, relates Rights to life and, on this path, scrolls through the availability of a better health service in the country. Aiming at analysing the impact of hospital infections occurrences upon the TJMG (Minas Gerais Court), it was found that, in cases pleading for the repairing of damages caused by hospital infection, 45% were rejected, and 55% were upheld for hospital infection; no actions were dismissed by dolo, nevertheless, guilt was found in 53% of actions. When analysing the occurrence of sequels, it was found that those occurred in 41% of the studied actions. Medical error was taken into consideration in 16% of the actions .Technical expertise work was performed in 84% of those actions. No compensation was granted in 47% of actions for damage by hospital infection and, in 12% of actions, compensation was granted for moral damage, while, for material damage, granting compensation reached 4% of actions. Cumulative moral and material damage indemnization was granted to 12% of actions. Lifelong or temporary pension was granted in 4% of cases. It was also found that, among indemnification, no restraining penalty was found in 96% of those actions, although in 4% of them freedom restriction was turned into community services. It was also observed the evolution of search for reparation from damages caused by hospital infection along a 10-year period. As per obits, they occurred in 30% of the actions researched. Death occurrence related to the trial of actions deemed reasonable for nosocomial infections increased 2.4 times. In face of medical error accepted by the judge, the actions deemed reasonable for hospital infection had a 16.5 increase. For sequel existence, medical error was judged reasonable in 1.5 more cases. Actions in which no technical expertise was performed had 16.4 times more chances of being accepted as reasonable for hospital infection. Those results demonstrate the necessity for a rearrangement in the current model for hospital infection control starting from the countrys public hospitals, mainly when one considers them as the major cause of preventable adverse events. Results also indicate the necessity of a greater technical, factual and legal improvement, as to substantiate the legal fundamentals and the actions for health regarding hospital infections.