Examples of injuries and rulings

Development of osteoporosis – a recognized case

An older woman was treated with medicine for several years and developed osteoporosis. We ruled that the osteoporosis began because she did not simultaneously take calcium or vitamin D supplements, which are known to prevent osteoporosis. The lack of preventive treatment was the cause of the woman developing osteoporosis. As a result, according to the law, she was entitled to compensation, because she was injured due to the treatment.

Blood clot caused by birth control pills – a recognized case

Two months after a 29-year-old woman started using birth control pills, she had acute headache and experienced photophobia. An MRI showed that she had a blood clot on the brain. We ruled that the blood clot was caused by the birth control pills. Birth control pills are known to cause blood clots, although it is a rare side-effect, that exceeds what the patient should tolerate when using birth control. As a result, she was entitled to compensation for experiencing a side-effect caused by medicine that was both rare and serious.

Delayed treatment – a recognized case

A boy received a blow to his wrist. At the emergency room they noted slight soreness, but the boy could still move his hand normally. An X-ray did not show any sign of fracture. The boy subsequently experienced discomfort with his hand. The hospital took a new X-ray, which showed that there had indeed been a fracture, and the boy was operated on. We ruled that the boy should have been examined more closely during the first visit to the emergency room and should have had a special type of X-ray Picture taken. Legally, the boy was entitled to compensation, because he had an injury caused by the delayed treatment.

Delayed treatment – a rejected case

A woman had her breast X-rayed. The examination showed a great deal of glandular tissue and a tumor in the lymph node, but there was no sign of cancer. Six months later she experienced pain in the same breast. An examination showed that she had cancer, and she had her breast removed. We ruled that they should have taken a sample during the first examination, since it is highly likely that the cancer would then have been found. We did, however, reject the case, because we ruled that the treatment (the removal of the breast) would have been the same, even if the cancer had been found during the first examination. The woman's chances of survival were not reduced because of the delayed treatment. The conclusion was that, legally, she was not entitled to compensation.

Want more examples?

On our Danish website we have a big database of rulings that you can search through. Bear in mind that these are all in Danish.

See the database here
(Redirect to the Danish website)