Appeals court upholds medical negligence ruling in boy’s death

The appeals court has dismissed all appeals and upheld the ruling of the court-of-first instance in the case of 10-year-old Stavros Yiorgallis, from Klavdia, who died after being discharged from hospital with a serious head injury in 2018.

In May 2022, the Larnaca district court found GP Eracles Pantelidakis guilty of medical negligence, saying he failed to properly examine the head X-ray of the boy, who later died from the injury.

It had also acquitted Kyriakos Kyriakides who was facing a similar charge of medical negligence as the then head of the accident and emergency department of Larnaca general hospital.

They were accused of failing to detect the fracture of the temporal bone in the X-ray of the deceased.

The boy had fallen and hit his head at the basketball court of Alethriko primary school during physical education on May 11, 2018.

He was rushed by his mother to the A&E of Larnaca general hospital, from where he was soon discharged.

A few hours later, he was taken back with severe headaches and low consciousness. He was then transferred to the Nicosia general hospital where he died during surgery.

In its ruling issued on February 12, the appeals court said the misdiagnosis was the beginning of a string of events that led to the boy’s death.

It also said the prosecution did not need to prove that the misdiagnosis was the main cause of death, but that it was an “essential” one.

The appeals court furthermore pointed out that at the time the boy was admitted to the Larnaca general hospital, there was no neurosurgeon on duty or neurosurgery clinic operating there.

It added that the wrong diagnosis of the X-ray led to the treatment of the case as mild and thus a private neurosurgeon was not called in.

“Based on medical testimony, if there had been a neurosurgeon the second time the child was taken to the Larnaca general hospital, he would have been saved,” the court said.

The appeals court also said the initial suspended sentence of 18 months in prison was an “error of principle”. However, the fact that seven years had passed since the incident and three-and-a-half since the sentence was passed, immediate imprisonment at this stage would be excessively harsh.

It also deemed that the acquittal of the second doctor was correct, as there was no basis for criminal liability as an accomplice.