The District Court rejected a lawsuit filed by a man who claimed he was severely injured during resuscitation performed by Magen David Adom (MDA) and Clalit teams - a resuscitation that saved his life but caused him extensive burns.
According to a report by Avishai Grinzaig on i24NEWS, the incident occurred on a hot summer day when the plaintiff collapsed on the street and underwent resuscitation for 45 minutes on a scorching sidewalk near a clinic. As a result of the successful resuscitation, his life was saved, and according to the doctors, he suffered brain damage. However, he suffered burns over about 30% of his body and was hospitalized for approximately two months.
In his lawsuit, the man claimed that the team should have moved him off the sidewalk or placed a barrier to prevent contact with the hot asphalt, and that the failure to do so caused him significant harm.
In her ruling, Judge Tamar Naot-Perry stated that "the team operating at the scene did not perceive the danger associated with the condition of the sidewalk even during the resuscitation itself, and more importantly - they were obligated to focus on continuous and rapid resuscitation efforts, where 'every second is critical,' and any delay or interruption in compressions or airway management could have been fatal."
The ruling also noted that "the resuscitation lasted approximately 45 continuous minutes, during which many actions were performed. These were not one-time actions, but rather actions that required ongoing medical treatment, real-time decision-making, and repeated assessments of the patient's condition, with all team members believing that professionally, any interruption in the continuity would have seriously harmed the plaintiff's chances of survival."
"The duration of the resuscitation was exceptional. This long period does not indicate hesitation or negligence, but rather an intense and continuous medical effort, performed in accordance with the strictest professional protocols, all aimed at not 'giving up' on the plaintiff and bringing him back to life."
Judge Naot-Perry emphasized, "Even if in hindsight one might think that there was an alternative course of action, in the context of all circumstances, this is not negligence. The success of the resuscitation, which led to the plaintiff's survival without brain damage, shows that the team's priorities were appropriate and, at the very least, reasonable, and does not amount to negligence that would establish liability for damages."