25. Legal Aspects of Therapeutic Alternatives and Costs: Court Decisions and Health Insurers

OLG (Superior Court) of Zweibrücken ruling, MedR 1983, 194.

The idea is actually trivial and only needs to be transferred to the context on hand: any tooth extraction (the more invasive measure) must be preceded by an attempt to preserve the tooth, e.g. by endodontic treatment or other conservative methods. Many pertinent examples from court rulings can be found in Oehler (2003). Of course, the rule of maximum preservation of tooth substance in tooth preparation must be observed as well, a rule that, among other things, aims at minimizing the extent of the surgical procedure.

Landgericht (district court) of Duisburg Ruling 4 O 138/97 of 22 September 2003.

The court saw no reason to rule on whether or not a crestal procedure would have been acceptable according to the start of the art in dentistry.

A long-term prognosis can be offered only after a method has been used over a certain period of time. The absence of such a prognosis alone does not in itself negate equivalence.

In addition, disk implants also have advantages over conventional crestal implants.

In a case heard by the OLG (superior court) of Hamm (20 U 169/98 concerning Professor Joos from Munster), the “expert” was not dismissed until it had been proven that, contrary to his statement, the disk implants that were the subject of the court case had never been removed at all, nor needed to be removed, and until even the court had taken note of the fact that “US FDA approval” – claimed by the same “expert” to be a prerequisite for marketing a system in Germany and for cost reimbursement by German health insurers – is of absolutely no consequence here. The reason given for the dismissal, however, was not the obviously false and one-sided statements made; rather the court cited that it “would be unreasonable on the part of the court to further burden the expert witness with the effort of having to participate in this trial”.

BVerfG (German Constitutional court) ruling, NJW 1979, 1930.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1992, 754; NJW 1974.1422.

This publication, however, leaves one to wonder why only 91 of 398 patients treated and followed in the same way were included in the statistics. Only the description of possible complications can be considered useful in this work. The statistics are unusable for obtaining scientific evidence.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1992,754.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1988,765.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, VersR 1974,752.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, VersR 1989, 851 (852); OLG (Superior Court) of Cologne ruling, NJW 1978,1690.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1982, 2121; NJW 1981,633; NJW 1981,1319.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1974,1422; OLG (Superior Court) of Karlsruhe ruling, VersR 1978,549; OLG (Superior Court) of Celle ruling, MedR 1984,233.

LG (District Court) of Aachen Ruling 11 O 484/95 of 6 September 1999, unpublished.

RG (German Imperial Court) ruling, JW 1912, 857; BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1962,1780.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1996,777.

LG (District Court) of Duisburg Ruling 4 O 138/97 of 22 September 2003; LG (District Court) of Saarbrücken Ruling 16 S10/99 of 6 March 2002; OLG (Superior Court) of Düsseldorf Ruling 4 U 205/97 of 17 November 1998.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1998,1784; OLG (Superior Court) of Cologne ruling, VersR 1997,1534; OLG (Superior Court) of Düsseldorf ruling, NJW 1997,2457.

LG (District Court) of Duisburg Ruling 4 O 138/97 of 22 September 2003; LG (District Court) of Saarbrücken Ruling 16 S 10/99 of 6 March 2002; OLG (Superior Court) of Düsseldorf Ruling 4 U 205/97 of 17 November 1998, NVersZ 1999.473.475.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1984,1395; NJW 1976,363.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling IV ZR 278/01 of 12 March 2003; OLG (Superior Court) of Düsseldorf ruling 4 U 225/01 of 3 February 2002; BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, VersR 1991,987; VersR 1978,272; VersR 1979,221; OLG (Superior Court) of Hamburg ruling, VersR 1965,174; OLG (Superior Court) of Frankfurt ruling, VersR 1981, 452: LG (District Court) of Hamburg ruling, VersR 1952,396.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, NJW 1979,1250.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, VersR 1979,222; VersR 1978,279; VersR 1991,987; VersR 1996,1225.

OLG (Superior Court) of Hamm ruling, VersR 1978,414.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, VersR 1979,222.

LG (District Court) of Duisburg Ruling 4 O 138/97 of 22 September 2003; LG (District Court) of Saarbrücken Ruling 16 S10/99 of 6 March 2002; OLG (Superior Court) of Düsseldorf Ruling 4 U 205/97 of 17 November 1998, NVersZ 1999.473» 475.

LG (District Court) of Stuttgart Ruling 27 O 304/01 of 15 July 2002.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, VersR 1993,957.

BGH (German Federal Court) ruling, VersR 1993,960.

LG (District Court) of Duisburg Ruling 4 O 138/97 of 22 September 2003; LG (District Court) of Saarbrücken Ruling 16 S 10/99 of 6 March 2002; OLG (Superior Court) of Düsseldorf Ruling 4 U 205/97 of 17 November 1998, NVersZ 1999.473.475.

OLG (Superior Court) of Düsseldorf Ruling 4 U 205/97 of 17 November 1998, NVersZ 1999,473.

OLG (Superior Court) of Cologne ruling, r+s, 1995,431.

BGH (German Federal Court) Ruling IV ZR 278/01 of 12 March 2003, VersR 2003,581,584.

OLG (Superior Court) of Cologne ruling, r+s 1995, 531; OLG (Superior Court) of Karlsruhe Ruling 12 U 168/95 of 21 March 1996, unpublished.

LG (District Court) of Cologne Ruling 23 O 139/96, unpublished.

LG (District Court) of Cologne Ruling 23 O 139/96, unpublished.

LG (District Court) of Duisburg Ruling 4 O 138/97 of 22 September 2003.