Aim of the study

The aim of the paper is analysis of the impact of immobilization treatment of “less severe” motor organ injuries affecting soft tissues on the position of medical experts and court decisions in crimes against health. We also analysed the attitude of courts to expert opinions and present a proposal for a model of judicial and medical opinion in such cases.

Material and methods

In the study, we analysed judgments of the criminal divisions of common courts, in which the use of medical immobilization of a given part of the body or lack thereof could have an impact on the degree of health impairment determined by the medical expert.

Results

Some experts consider medical immobilization to be tantamount to an impairment of the function of a body organ, and the courts rarely reject such opinions. For some experts, the key is not the actual function of the immobilized part of the musculoskeletal system after 7 days from injury, but the immobilization treatment itself, and not the time it takes. In addition, experts determine the severity of injuries when immobilization is/is not used.

Conclusions

The degree of health impairment, as defined in the Penal Code, should be determined by a medical check-up carried out 7 days after the injury, with an assessment of its “biological” effects, and not by the use of immobilization treatment and the time for which it is maintained.