The court acknowledges a failure in medical care which caused non-pecuniary damage and a "loss of chance" of recovery.

However, the court has ordered the regional ministry to pay a compensation considerably lower than the 4.1 million euros Marta's parents requested.

The case of Marta Pérez shocked the public in September 2022. She was 19, when she went to the gym in Ibi and tried a protein shake containing an ingredient to which she was allergic.

She started to feel unwell and was rushed to a health centre, where she suffered an anaphylactic shock and a cardiorespiratory arrest that lasted around ten minutes. The severe lack of oxygen to the brain left her in a vegetative state: irreversible brain damage.

Marta's family keep fighting for her to improve through intensive rehabilitation treatments.

The ruling concludes that the examination at the Alicante centre was "inadequate". The record ommits details such as the administration of the anti-inflammatory medicine Urbasón.

The examination did not include any enquiry into relevant details or medical history, nor was a thorough physical examination carried out, as pulmonary auscultation and a skin examination were omitted.

The key point in the ruling is the lack of caution following the administration of the drug Urbason. Although the court notes that the use of this corticosteroid was an "appropriate and logical" treatment for the initial diagnosis, expert reports state that, at the first sign of an allergic reaction, "the patient must always be kept under observation due to the risk of biphasic anaphylaxis".

However, Marta was sent home without any follow-up care, only to return barely an hour later in a critical condition, showing signs of cyanosis and a cardiorespiratory arrest. There was no mention of Urbason having been administered.

Despite highlighting these shortcomings in care, the ruling refuses to set the maximum compensation for severe disability and physical sequelae.

The court stated that "keeping the patient under observation at the health center between the first and second visits would not have guaranteed with certainty the possibility of stopping the crisis that was bound to unfold afterwards".

Furthermore, the court ruling details a series of "unfortunate circumstances" and factors beyond the control of the on-call medical staff that mitigate the direct link between the assistance provided and the tragic outcome.

First, the ruling notes that Marta entered the centre with stable vital signs and no visible external signs of shock. Although she informed the nursing staff at reception about her medical history, the court found that there is no evidence that this information was passed on to the medical staff, nor that the young woman herself explicitly mentioned it to them.

In addition, her history of severe asthma was recorded in the public system of another region (health databases are not interconnected between regions) and the young woman was not under the supervision of the local allergy service nor did she carry the recommended self-injectable adrenaline to stop this type of severe reaction.

Considering all these factors, the court concluded that there had been "a deficiency in care constituting significant moral damages", setting the compensation at 100,000 euros. The partially favourable ruling states that court costs should not be imposed on either party. The decision is not final.

Review public health, medical care and clinical news