Els PortsL'Alt MaestratEl Baix MaestratL'AlcalaténLa Plana AltaLa Plana BaixaL'Alt MillarsL'Alt PalànciaEl Racó d'AdemúsEls SerransEl Camp de TúriaEl Camp de MorvedreL'Horta NordL'Horta de ValènciaL'Horta OestL'Horta SudLa Plana d'Utiel-RequenaLa Foia de BunyolLa Vall de CofrentsLa Ribera AltaLa Ribera BaixaLa Canal de NavarrésLa CosteraLa Vall d'AlbaidaLa SaforEl ComtatL'AlcoiàL'Alt VinalopóEl Vinalopó MitjàLa Marina AltaLa Marina BaixaL'AlacantíEl Baix VinalopóEl Baix SeguraEls PortsL'Alt MaestratEl Baix MaestratL'AlcalaténLa Plana AltaLa Plana BaixaL'Alt MillarsL'Alt PalànciaEl Racó d'AdemúsEls SerransEl Camp de TúriaEl Camp de MorvedreL'Horta NordL'Horta de ValènciaL'Horta OestL'Horta SudLa Plana d'Utiel-RequenaLa Foia de BunyolLa Vall de CofrentsLa Ribera AltaLa Ribera BaixaLa Canal de NavarrésLa CosteraLa Vall d'AlbaidaLa SaforEl ComtatL'AlcoiàL'Alt VinalopóEl Vinalopó MitjàLa Marina AltaLa Marina BaixaL'AlacantíEl Baix VinalopóEl Baix Segura
VA|ES|EN
Diari Valencià logo

Diari Valencià

92,088 Euros Compensation for Negligence in Gastric Balloon Placement in Castellón

A 49-year-old woman suffers severe consequences after a medical procedure in Castellón; the clinic and doctor are held liable for lack of follow-up and inadequate informed consent.

Generic image of a gastric balloon and a medical syringe.
IA

Generic image of a gastric balloon and a medical syringe.

A 49-year-old patient will receive 92,088 euros in compensation for severe sequelae suffered after the placement of an intragastric balloon at a clinic in Castellón. The Civil Court number 1 of Castellón has ruled against the clinic and the doctor for manifest negligence in post-procedure care.

The court ruling fully upholds the filed claim, concluding that the procedure should not have been performed due to the patient's medical history, which included a previous hiatal hernia surgery with the Nissen technique. According to the judgment, this circumstance made the gastric balloon placement a «completely contraindicated and high-risk procedure for the patient».
The sentence also identifies a deficit in informed consent. Although the patient signed the pre-procedure document, the court believes she did not receive sufficient and specific information about the risks associated with her personal history, thus preventing her from making «a conscious and free decision».
The patient underwent the procedure on June 28, 2024. In the following days, she was not seen by any physician. On July 28, feeling unwell, she received two telephone consultations from an unidentified person who was not a doctor. As her condition did not improve with the telephone-prescribed medication, she was transferred to the Hospital de La Plana in Vila-real, where she required emergency surgery for septic shock and multi-organ failure secondary to infection. She was subsequently admitted to the ICU and on August 6 underwent further surgery for a gastric perforation.
The patient also developed generalized edema linked to severe malnutrition and a secondary intra-abdominal abscess. She received hospital and home treatments until October 18, when she was discharged with lasting sequelae.
The ruling finds liability for performing the procedure on a patient with contraindicating medical history. It also deems the follow-up care negligent for ignoring clear symptoms of intestinal obstruction. The resolution emphasizes that informed consent is not a generic authorization. In this regard, the patient's lawyers, Ica Aznar and Juan Carlos Montealegre, highlighted that informed consent «is not a blank check that, once signed, permits any harm or injury, but must be specific to each intervention and each patient according to their circumstances and personal history».

Related News