Kidney transplant patient wins over €74,000 in damages
Had to pay for life-saving operation in Pisa
A kidney transplant patient in his mid-30s was awarded just over €74,000 after a court found that his life-saving surgery should have been paid for by the government.
The man, Daniel Cassar, had been denied the treatment in Malta after the authorities told him that the operation he needed was not covered by the national health service.
He paid for his own operation in Pisa after his mother donated the kidney and the operation saved his life.
Mr Cassar said he suffered from Type 1 diabetes and that his health had progressively deteriorated to the extent that he urgently needed the surgery, which consisted in simultaneous pancreatic and living donor kidney transplantation.
The surgery was not offered in Malta and Mr Cassar applied with the director of institutional health to authorise his free treatment at the Cisanello Hospital in Pisa, Italy. However, his request was turned down and he was told that the procedure did not fall under the publicly-funded health care services package offered by the Maltese social security service.
He went ahead with the operation and it saved his life.
In the case he filed against the authorities, Mr Cassar claimed that the system for the processing of requests for treatment abroad was not based upon objective and known criteria that were non-discriminatory.
He also claimed that the denial was in violation of the principles of natural justice as he had not been given an opportunity to present his case.
The surgery alone had cost €74,241.91, which sum he was awarded in compensation yesterday. However, Mr Cassar said he also had to pay for travel and living while in Italy, which costs were not covered.
As a person entitled to free medical treatment in Malta, Mr Cassar was also entitled to the treatment he sought, Mr Justice Ray Pace ruled. Had the surgery been possible in Malta, then it would have been performed free of charge. The fact that such treatment was not available did not mean the patient was not entitled to it elsewhere, the court added.
The judge upheld the claim that the Health Department advisory committee looking into the case did not apply objective criteria when discussing applications. Each case was being decided on its own merits and, as a result, the criteria adopted by the committee were discretionary.
Mr Justice Pace said that to use a system to deny free medical treatment to a dying patient in order to balance the country's social security system is draconian.