Valencia’s municipal jury reached a verdict with seven votes in favor and two against. The case involved a doctor at a health center who was accused of dereliction of duty for allegedly refusing to provide care to a dying patient. On the day in question, the defendant was on duty outside the health center. A relative of the victim, located in the emergency room and living just across the street, sought help because the father suffered cardiorespiratory arrest and convulsions at home. The doctor contends he could not cross the street, claiming he had been instructed by health authorities to wait for a directive. The son then called emergency services from his father’s residence and remained with him until the end. At the hearing, the defendant stated to the prosecutor that he would repeat his actions if given the chance.
The verdict was announced after the public reading in the Valencia City of Justice courtroom. Nine jurors were involved, and the majority found the defendant guilty of failing to assist Emilio Nuñez when aid was available. While seven jurors believed the doctor acted within medical emergency rules, two jurors disagreed and concluded he could have helped.
During the proceedings, the prosecutor requested a disqualification sentence of one and a half years, during which the physician would be barred from practicing medicine, along with a fine totaling 4,050 euros, calculated as 15 euros per day for nine months. The request also included 90,000 euros in compensation: 30,000 euros for Emilio’s surviving spouse and 20,000 euros for each of his three children.
If I were at the door I would leave
Accounts from the oral hearing indicate the doctor claimed he could not leave his post and argued he followed the established procedures. He asserted he was awaiting a call from TETRA, the emergency information and coordination channel that connects to CICU Health, to determine whether his involvement was required. He repeatedly stated that he was sleeping when the nurse informed him of the dying patient’s condition and that someone at the door reported the situation.
The doctor admitted he did not contact the emergency room staff to monitor the patient or verify whether emergency medical services from the intensive care unit were en route. When pressed by the prosecutor, he maintained that his actions were appropriate and that he would repeat them under similar circumstances.
The doctor was resting and unaware of the morning’s events
The defendant argued that he would have acted only if he had been at the same doorway as the patient. He asked why he should treat a patient fifty meters away but not one five hundred meters away, expressing his frustration with the situation.
“He completely ignored the patient”
The incident occurred in the early hours of September 22, 2019, when the defendant was performing external assistance duties at the Juan Llorens health centre. The doctor claimed he was awaiting notification from CICU and believed the patient had already received help, making it unnecessary for him to leave his post.
The prosecutor emphasized a physician on duty has a legal obligation to assist a patient and that help was available. It was noted that the doctor was not engaged in any other assignment that morning. The evidence showed he was sleeping when told about the patient’s critical condition. The prosecutor argued that the doctor needed only to cross the street to offer aid and that the failure to do so was a grave omission.
Regarding the defense’s position that the patient might have died even with intervention, the prosecutor suggested that a physician should still attempt to help in the final moments of life. The defense maintained that the defendant’s professional record was spotless and that his colleagues and patients valued him. A comprehensive defense briefing outlined how CICU operates and attributed any shortfall in care to administrative decisions rather than the doctor’s actions that morning.