Andorran Constitutional Court Rejects Appeal in Hepatitis C Notification Case

The Andorran Constitutional Court has rejected an appeal for constitutional protection filed by the family of a woman who died in 2011, six years after the Andorran Health Care Service (SAAS) failed to notify her of a hepatitis C diagnosis made during a hospital visit in 2005.

The family—made up of the woman's children, sisters, and granddaughters—challenged the compensation amounts awarded by the Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court in March 2026. They had sued SAAS in 2023 for patrimonial liability, claiming the lack of notification prevented early treatment and led to fatal liver cirrhosis. A prior criminal case against the attending doctor ended in acquittal.

Andorra's Batllia initially dismissed the claim. The Administrative Chamber partially upheld it, recognising a "loss of opportunity"—the patient's right to decide on treatment—and granted €5,000 to each child, €2,000 to each sister, and €1,500 to each granddaughter, totalling €17,000.

Deeming the sums too low and poorly justified, the family sought €45,000 per child, €15,000 per sister, and €10,000 per granddaughter—up to €140,000 overall for moral damages. They argued the awards ignored amounts SAAS had deemed possible and violated their right to a properly reasoned judgment.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Administrative Chamber's decision adequately grounded in law. It clarified that the right to a reasoned ruling requires only that decisions avoid being illogical, absurd, or arbitrary, not that they be correct or of high quality.

The court highlighted the chamber's rationale for the reduced amounts: uncertainty over whether the patient, who had severe pre-existing lung conditions and disregarded medical advice such as quitting smoking, would have accepted or adhered to 2005 treatment options, or whether it would have prevented cirrhosis progression. It also noted that "loss of opportunity" relies on probabilistic evaluation rather than definitive causation, naturally warranting lower indemnities. The reasoning, the court said, was coherent with the facts and applicable law.