hat
Vre, tribinal la apèl gen yon obligasyon nan akize a sètifye klarifye lefèt ke de lòt tretman te disponib, youn nan ki te nan moman an yon pwosedi tè nouvo. Tribinal la pou rekonèt Sena chwa pou yo Behandlungsmetho-de Malgre ke prensipalman responsablite nan doktè a (Sena jijman BGHZ 102, 17, 22, 106, 153, 157; soti nan 11 Me 1982 - VI zr 171 / 80 - VersR 1982, 771. . 772; soti nan 24 Pa gen-novanb 1987 - VI zr 65 / 87 - VersR 1988, 190, 191 15 ak mas 2005 a - VI zr 313 / 03 - VersR 2005, 836 ;. OLG Zweibrücken, OLGR 2001, 79, 81 ak NA-Desizyon nan panèl la nan 19 desanm 2000 - VI zr 171 / 00 - ;. OLG Karlsruhe, MedR 2003, 229, 230).
eng
The appellate court correctly confirmed that the defendant had an obligation to provide information that two treatment alternatives were available, one of which was a new-country procedure at that time. According to the case law of the cognitive Senate, the choice of the treatment method is primarily the responsibility of the physician (Senate judgments BGHZ 102, 17, 22, 106, 153, 157, of the 11 May 1982 - VI ZR 171 / 80 - VersR 1982, 771, 772, 24, No-vember 1987 - VI ZR 65 / 87 - VersR 1988, 190, 191, and 15 March 2005 - VI ZR 313 / 03 - VersR 2005, 836; OLG two-bridges, OLGR 2001, 79, 81 with Senate decision of 19 December 2000 - VI ZR 171 / 00 - OLG Karlsruhe, MedR 2003, 229, 230).