.jpg)
Doctors newspaper online, 09.08.2019
transplant doctor
Accepted in 2015, the former head of transplantation surgery at the University Hospital in Göttingen wants to claim a compensation in the amount of 1.2 million euros. At the beginning, witnesses from the Middle East flew in.
By Heidi Niemann
© apops / Fotolia
BRAUNSCHWEIG. How much compensation is due to 2015 acquitted former head of transplantation surgery at the University Hospital Göttingen ? On Friday the district court Braunschweig dealt with this question. The 52-year-old doctor today demands 1.2 million euros from the state of Lower Saxony for the remand in custody in 2013 . The arrest warrant had been suspended after eleven months against payment of a security deposit of 500,000 euros.
The doctor explains his complaint by stating that due to the detention he was unable to compete for a promised position in Jordan with a five-digit monthly salary. In addition, his family had taken a loan for the provision of the deposit, for which some 80,000 euros interest should be paid. To investigate this information, the board had summoned a brother of the plaintiff and a doctor from Jordan as witnesses to the trial.
As usual in such proceedings, there was no decision at the first appointment. The court wants to announce in mid-September, whether and in what amount the doctor in addition to the already paid compensation of 8500 euros even further damages.
The district court of Göttingen had acquitted the doctor in May 2015 after about 20 months of trial of the allegation of the eleven attempted manslaughter and the threefold bodily injury with fatalities. The court justified this among other things with the fact that the manipulation of medical data in favor of own patients was morally reprehensible, but at that time not punishable.
Written employment contract is missing
Chairman Judge Ulrich Broihan pointed out at the beginning that expenses for the provision of a deposit were in principle to be compensated. However, the condition is that the damage was incurred by the plaintiff himself. The loan for the bail, however, had taken his brother. Lender is a "good friend" who does such a business, reported the flown in from the Middle East brother. The written contract stipulated that the 500,000 euros should be repaid in four installments within two years, with the last installment also earning 80,000 euros in interest. In case of non-compliance with the contract should also be due 50,000 euros penalty.
In fact, the contract was not respected: Instead of the agreed installment payments, the lender only received the € 500,000 after the senior physician was acquitted in May 2015 and had his bail back. The good acquaintance had agreed, reported the brother. Also, the agreed interest and the penalty had not been paid.
The surgeon claims the loss of earnings as the "thickest chunk". According to him, in the middle of January 2013, he could have taken a job at a clinic in Amman with a monthly salary of $ 50,000, where he should set up a liver transplant center. This was agreed orally in November 2012. There was no written contract, he should have signed on entering the service. He was remanded five days earlier. The prosecution feared that he could withdraw from the criminal proceedings and settle abroad.
The medical director of the clinic in Amman, flown in from Jordan, confirmed the oral agreement. Normally, someone will get a written contract before starting their employment. Because one has known each other for a long time and was also a friend, this was not done.
According to his statements, the plaintiff has been working in Amman since 2017, but only as an attending physician. The clinic had given him his own practice. The plans for a transplant center have been abandoned.
Cost of constitutional complaint without relevance?
According to her preliminary assessment, the board does not consider a claim to be justified: the doctor would like to be reimbursed for the costs of 35,700 euros that were incurred as a result of his constitutional complaint against his detention. However, the Federal Constitutional Court had not accepted the appeal for decision. A constitutional complaint was not a promising means to avoid pre-trial detention, the presiding judge said. Therefore, the costs for the law firm are not compensated.
More articles from this topic
No comments:
Post a Comment