Quando la cartella clinica diventa una prova: la Cassazione e il nesso causale nella responsabilità sanitaria

In its Order No. 4704 of 2 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Third Civil Section, addressed the relationship between medical liability, incomplete medical records and the burden of proof. The Court reaffirmed that deficiencies in medical documentation cannot operate to the detriment of the patient from an evidentiary standpoint. Where direct evidence has become unavailable precisely because of inadequate documentation by the party responsible for keeping the medical records, the patient may rely on circumstantial evidence, in accordance with the principle of proximity of evidence. The decision is also relevant to the assessment of causation: merely classifying an adverse outcome as a “complication” does not, in itself, establish that the event was unavoidable or exclude medical liability. The ruling therefore highlights the dual function of medical records as both clinical documentation and evidentiary material, while reaffirming the importance of the proximity-of-evidence principle in medical liability litigation.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Working Paper of Public Health
Published
2026-11-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4081/wpph.2026.11054
Primary Topic
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

Quando la cartella clinica diventa una prova: la Cassazione e il nesso causale nella responsabilità sanitaria

Giuseppe Corsi
Working Paper of Public Health
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
article

Quando la cartella clinica diventa una prova: la Cassazione e il nesso causale nella responsabilità sanitaria

Giuseppe Corsi
article en

Abstract

In its Order No. 4704 of 2 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, Third Civil Section, addressed the relationship between medical liability, incomplete medical records and the burden of proof. The Court reaffirmed that deficiencies in medical documentation cannot operate to the detriment of the patient from an evidentiary standpoint. Where direct evidence has become unavailable precisely because of inadequate documentation by the party responsible for keeping the medical records, the patient may rely on circumstantial evidence, in accordance with the principle of proximity of evidence. The decision is also relevant to the assessment of causation: merely classifying an adverse outcome as a “complication” does not, in itself, establish that the event was unavoidable or exclude medical liability. The ruling therefore highlights the dual function of medical records as both clinical documentation and evidentiary material, while reaffirming the importance of the proximity-of-evidence principle in medical liability litigation.

Working Paper of Public HealthVol. 14
Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon