[Operation well performed but insufficiently documented and not indicated]. / Operation lege artis, jedoch mangelhaft dokumentiert und nicht indiziert.

A 50-year-old patient presented with a lump in the main joint of the fourth finger of the left hand, which was suspected of being malignant, for an operation. Following surgery the lump was still present and, furthermore, the patient reported a wound resulting from surgery on the third finger accompanied by swelling, pain and a loss of mobility. The patient accused the physician of performing surgery without indications on the wrong finger together with failure to remove the lump. The surgeon stated that lysis had been performed on the flexor tendon in the area of the lump. An external expert admonished the cursory surgery report; however, the expert stated that removal of the lump at the tendon would have been medically indicated and the operation was performed according to professional surgical standards. The decision of the arbitration board differed from the expert opinion as the insufficient documentation presented at first could have been understood to mean that a tendon node on the fourth finger was to be removed which was not the case. Furthermore, the operation performed would only have been indicated if a "trigger finger" were present; therefore, the surgery as well as the resulting afflictions and follow-up treatment were to be assessed as faulty. The handwritten surgery report had several shortcomings as well and led to a reversal of the burden of proof.

[Undislocated fracture of cuneiform I bone complicated by language barrier]. / Nicht-dislozierte Fraktur des Os cuneiforme I bei fehlenden Deutschkenntnissen

A 30-year-old non-German speaking patient suffered an ankle sprain while playing beach volleyball. Conventional radiography did not reveal any fractures. The patient was treated with a Geisha cast for immobilization and relief and was also informed about pain-dependent weight bearing using an illustrated information sheet. In the course of the healing process the patient consulted the orthopedic department a second time. During a third visit he left before consultation as he felt that the waiting time was too long. Because he disagreed with the treatment he visited an orthopedist who ordered a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the patient's foot. The MRI scan revealed an undislocated fracture of the cuneiform I bone. A control scan was conducted 2 months later and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) was diagnosed. The orthopedist ordered treatment based on a therapy with a VacoPed® orthesis. When there was no improvement in the healing process the patient sued the orthopedic surgeon for medical malpractice due to incorrect load and subsequent pain for € 40,000. All courts up to the Federal Court of Germany dismissed the case as no expert witnesses could find any errors in treatment. The court held that the medical information of the non-German speaking patient was sufficient against the defendant's arguments. It is, however, noteworthy that the burden of proof for sufficient medical information of a patient is always placed on the treating physician.