Woman loses historic case against Phya Thai 1 hospital due to legal technicality

BANGKOK: -- The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal of a disabled man seeking a 57 million baht in compensation from Phya Thai 1 hospital and two doctors for negligence leading to his disability.

The Supreme Court’s ruling had ended one of the longest legal disputes in history which started in 1991 when the plaintiff, 23-year old Mr Pitakwong Lorsermwattana, was still a minor and the case was lodged on his behalf by his mother, Mrs Priyanant Lorsermwattana.

The court ruled that the statue of limitations of the case had already expired because the plaintiff failed to appeal within one month after the Appeals Court refused to accept the case which was a duplication of a case for which the Supreme Court has already acquitted the three defendants namely Phya Thai 1 hospital, Dr Yanyong Mangklavirat and Dr Santi Sutthipinthawong.

Mrs Priyanant faulted her lawyer arranged for her by the Justice Ministry for the failure to appeal the Civil Court’s ruling within one month causing the statute of limitations of the case to expire.

As determined as ever, she said that she would explore what else she could do to seek justice for her disabled son.

She said that she was sorry that her case failed to set a precedent due to legal technicaliaty.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/woman-loses-historic-case-phya-thai-1-hospital-due-legal-technicality


-- Thai PBS 2014-12-11

How much did the hospital pay the woman's lawyer, to screw her? This is Thailand, you can't make this stuff up.

Sue the Justice Ministry and the lawyer too.

The court ruled that the statue of limitations of the case had already expired because the plaintiff failed to appeal within one month after the Appeals Court refused to accept the case which was a duplication of a case for which the Supreme Court has already acquitted the three defendants namely Phya Thai 1 hospital, Dr Yanyong Mangklavirat and Dr Santi Sutthipinthawong.

Mrs Priyanant faulted her lawyer arranged for her by the Justice Ministry for the failure to appeal the Civil Court’s ruling within one month causing the statute of limitations of the case to expire.

A bit confused here, if the supreme court had acquitted the defendants in the same case as the civil, why would appealing a civil courts ruling do FA?

Criminal law and civil law are practiced here as in the States. The hospital et al. could win the criminal case but lose the civil case. Remember OJ Simpson back in the States? He was found not guilty in criminal court, but lost in civil court which pretty much cost him everything.

just like every where else in the world, whats right and what the law says are far apart

They just wiped out Thai history. this case might have been part of it....

Edited December 11, 201411 yr by ikke

Shameful.

Remedy: Sue the Lawyers They did not do their Jobs

A post containing profanity has been removed.

I searched on the son's name to find out what the case what about, and why it would be a (an?) historic ruling, but I only found a few new stories talking about the case being dropped on technicality. There article in the BP mentions a tiny bit about it, but that's all (I would post the link, but I understand we can't do that for the BP?).

If anyone has more information, please post the link. I am curious and would like to read more.

Just the legal system protecting its rich friends, nothing new.

"The Supreme Court’s ruling had ended one of the longest legal disputes in history which started in 1991 when the plaintiff, 23-year old Mr Pitakwong Lorsermwattana, was still a minor and the case was lodged on his behalf by his mother, Mrs Priyanant Lorsermwattana."

If that's his right age '23-year old Mr Pitakwong Lorsermwattana' wasn't born in 1991!

Never give up

Never give in

Never surrender

The medical fraternity are untouchable in Thailand. The Yinluck administration tried to bring them to accountability and was stonewalled by the legal system. Disgraceful!

justice is not a case of who is wrong and who is right

justice in many countries is : how much money you have and how much the others have to spend on endless disputes, till one runs out of money

"The Supreme Court’s ruling had ended one of the longest legal disputes in history which started in 1991 when the plaintiff, 23-year old Mr Pitakwong Lorsermwattana, was still a minor and the case was lodged on his behalf by his mother, Mrs Priyanant Lorsermwattana."

If that's his right age '23-year old Mr Pitakwong Lorsermwattana' wasn't born in 1991!

Try your maths again BSJ.

Remedy: Sue the Lawyers They did not do their Jobs

Have you ever tried suing the police, a lawyer or a member of the medical profession in any country?

These people the world over are virtually a law among themselves, they are even self regulated by their own industry. Rarely are people successful when suing police, doctors and lawyers for negligence

Remedy: Sue the Lawyers They did not do their Jobs

Have you ever tried suing the police, a lawyer or a member of the medical profession in any country?

These people the world over are virtually a law among themselves, they are even self regulated by their own industry. Rarely are people successful when suing police, doctors and lawyers for negligence

Not so.

A potentially historic case, but apparently not one worth ThaiPBS actually reporting what gave rise to the case itself, apart from just talking about the legal technicalities.

No need to mention even in the slightest what the hospital and two doctors allegedly did or didn't do that led to the litigation.

Math is not my strong suit.... but if the case began in 1991 as the article says and the alleged victim is 23 years old now, that would seem to suggest whatever happened happened at birth or soon thereafter.

Edited December 12, 201411 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK