Andorran Court Rejects Appeal in Hepatitis C Notification Failure Case

The Andorran Constitutional Court has rejected an appeal from the family of a woman who died in 2011, upholding the limited compensation awarded against the Andorran Health Care Service (SAAS) for failing to inform her of a hepatitis C diagnosis six years earlier.

The case originated in 2005 when the woman was treated at Meritxell Hospital for a severe respiratory condition. Tests detected hepatitis C, but SAAS staff did not notify her. She returned to hospital in 2011, where doctors diagnosed liver cirrhosis caused by the virus, leading to her death shortly after.

The family pursued legal action, arguing the lack of information prevented timely treatment. A criminal case against the attending doctor ended in acquittal. They then sought compensation from SAAS for administrative malfunction. Andorra's Batllia court initially dismissed the claim, but in March 2026 the Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court partially upheld the appeal.

That court recognised a "loss of opportunity" for treatment due to the communication failure, but awarded modest sums: €5,000 to each child, €2,000 to each sister, and €1,500 to each grandchild, totalling €17,000. It cited uncertainties, including lack of proof that earlier notification would have altered the fatal outcome, the woman's other serious conditions such as lung diseases, and her non-compliance with medical advice, like continuing to smoke.

The family, including children, sisters, and granddaughters, filed a constitutional protection appeal in 2023, seeking up to €140,000 for moral damage. They claimed the Superior Court's amounts—far below their demands of €45,000 per child, €15,000 per sister, and €10,000 per granddaughter—lacked sufficient justification, violating the right to a properly reasoned decision.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal, ruling the Superior Court's reasoning coherent and grounded in facts and law. It stressed that the right to a reasoned judgment does not guarantee correctness or quality, only that it avoids being illogical, absurd, or arbitrary. The court noted four factual uncertainties, including whether the woman would have accepted or tolerated 2005 treatment options given her comorbidities. It also affirmed the probabilistic nature of "loss of opportunity" claims, which inherently reduce compensation compared to proven causation.

The decision closes the case, confirming SAAS's partial liability without establishing direct causal link to the death.