“BASOS will help outside the judiciary in SNS conflicts”

the Justice service efficiency lawWhich came into effect a few days ago, it is called to accelerate Legal procedures related to the health field. To do this, among other measures, Conflict solution outside the scope of the judiciarySomething considers the sector to be “the most human way to face any controversy.

They are words álvaro IuritaWho recently became part of the networks (external decisions in health law) as the company manager, who started in the hands of the promise From Lorenzo Abu Gharados. “In recent years, an increase in claims against professionals and health centers has been observed,” the lawyer, who has played in the past thirties, has warned roles of the maximum responsibility in HM hospitals.

In an interview with Medical writingIrurita highlights the news provided by the suspended regulations and challenges: “suggesting” fixed standards “for the specific evaluation of health damage is a request that requires the entire sector for years and still without being achieved.

What is the news approved by Law 1/2025, on January 2, regarding measures on the effectiveness of public justice service? What changes do you involve?

This criterion will enhance the solution outside the scope of the judiciary for disputes in the health field, which in our opinion is the most human way to face any controversy, because it is imposed as a procedural condition to reach the civil mandate, the parties must call any means of negotiations that were accepted in the past (this means that there is a way to negotiate. The means that are considered in this law are, in addition to direct negotiation, mediation, special or public success, (OVC), and the opinion of an expert person
An independent or cooperative legal process.

This diversity causes the limbs or its most appropriate design to make the process solve as short as possible and at lower costs, some of these procedures have already been clarified in the health sector.

Another modernity is that negotiating procedures within the MACS framework can be implemented by means of remote means, and organizing the principles that must be governed; Confidentiality and data protection.

What are the main problems, at the present time, in terms of resolving health conflicts? Is the abuse of civil roads to submit demands without previous reports?

In recent years a An increase in claims against professionals and health centers. This judicial can be stimulated, partly, by ignorance of resolving the alternative conflict, as well as the perception that significant compensation will be obtained or more pressure on the other party (professional or medium). This causes an increase in the deadline for the solution, which generates uncertainty for both prosecutors, professionals and health centers.

Often, no healthy professionals or patients are clearly known, or lack a specific advice that enhances them. In addition, there are not always advanced protocols within the health centers to direct this type of conflict.

In HM Hospitals, we create a specific unit in the legal department to attend and solve Medical practice claims In a fast and effective way for both patients and professionals, in the event of an error, you must recognize and apologize adequate repair, despite reviewing protocols to prevent them from occurring again.

It also commented on the use of MASC, the decision can be recorded and reduce the costs of conflict and also contribute to reducing tension between the parties (professional, patient and/or family) and will allow the most flexible solutions and adaptation to each case.

It also happens that in some cases a civil lawsuit is filed without a strong or independent expert report that supports the claim and in cases of health responsibility, it is important to determine whether there is a bad parkice or not or whether the professional performance in the Lex Artis is. The well -collected experts report can be directed to the claim, and in many cases, even enhancing an agreement before reaching the trial.

How can this rule be achieved to reduce it through these “direct” demands?

The main mechanism to reduce the demands that are submitted without experimenting with a previously eliminated decision, above all, is clarified by introducing sufficient means to resolve the conflict (MAC) and the requirements of the previous negotiation activity as “procedural requirements” in most civil processes. Even if the claim arrives at the court, at different times of the procedure, the judge or the lawyer of the Justice Department can draw the matter to one of these means of conflict, and thus the parties try to reach an agreement and avoid the continuation of the lawsuit.

In addition, the law provides the personality of abuse of public justice service, which can be manifested in unfounded lawsuits or in an unjustified rejection of participation in negotiation, which leads to consequences in terms of coasts, although in relation to this issue, we will have to wait for what are the waste of judges.

Also, if one of the two parties has formulated in the negotiating phase a proposal and the other rejects it without justification, and it coincides with greatly with the ruling, it is expected that the penalties on the coast or the imposition of the superior interests of delay on legal allocations, bearing in mind that the aforementioned behavior reduces the efficiency of justice.

Do you agree with the punishment, if possible for cases that do not pass through a mask?

Although there is a contradictory voice with the imposition of Mascs as a procedural condition because they consider that it can violate the right to effective judicial protection, I consider that its rush, although it is achieved through the punishment involved in the coast by not trying to reach a solution outside the blocking, but it can lead to a greater benefit, the human evaluation of the material. In most cases, the emotional cost that causes it to be solved over time. MASCS is an accessible, faster and more economical solution to confront
Solve controversy.

The proposal of “fixed standards” or standards for the specific evaluation of health damage, such as traffic accidents, which serves as a reference to estimate compensation in cases of health responsibility, is a request that requires the entire sector for years and that it has not been fulfilled.

However, its implementation will undoubtedly help the dispute decision outside the judiciary in the health sector because it will be clearly suitable, not subject to interpretation, compensation for the same type of damage and provides the greatest legal certainty.

There was no more progress than it has already been commented on, which will undoubtedly enhance the decision of conflict outside the judiciary in the health field, and will help prevent the judicial system from the allegations that, in many cases, can be resolved more flexible and less expensive for all parties through these methods, and helping to protect the relationship between doctors.