The purpose of this article is to clarify the importance of respecting the limits of the medical specialty, the consequences arising from this, in terms of the nature of medical expertise. Nowadays, forensic expertise continues to be approached from an obsolete perspective, without detecting its limits in medical or legal matters. This article aims to analyze the relevant legislation regarding the limits and implications of medical specialties. Despite the abundance of specialized works in the field, it is still difficult to clarify the object of forensic expertise. The purpose of our analysis is to reveal the nature of the expertise that is carried out in trials where medical malpractice is being examined, whether it is the negligence of the doctor or the fault of the medical or pharmaceutical unit.

Through this material we tried to identify the reasons that were the basis for the adoption of Article 1622 of the Civil Code, through which certain third parties are protected from the effects of compensations potentially prejudicial to their situation. After exposing some preliminary considerations regarding the institution of compensation, we set out to present the main hypotheses that would be subsumed under this legal provision. Along with their evocation, we tried to extract the interests predominantly protected by the legislator, which justifies the blocking of the compensation. We believe that understanding these cases is essential for the fair application of Article 1622.

An application of the new technologies has involved a modern regulation, and the European states have received the electronic form of the patient file and have transposed it into a relatively recent regulation, and the novelty of the problems and the strict dependence on the IT platforms have led to successive changes in the legislation, at the level of several states. Adjustments, correlations, adaptations took place at the law-technology border, in relation to the „physical” reality of the national medical system. The electronic health file does not have the role of replacing the „classic” file, in written form. The latter remains in the circuit of the health system and preserves its usefulness, and the medical act is not conditioned by the existence of an electronic file. From the DES perspective and for the usefulness of the approach undertaken, some guarantees of the protection of private life and personal data were verified. The secrecy of the data concerning health is no longer just a „privacy” between the patient and a limited number of people, but is „displayed” on an IT platform, to which several natural persons/entities have access, the technical access key (matrix, user, password) is entrusted to the users through the administrator, given that the Internet is an environment susceptible to the generation of security breaches. Granting access to the entire electronic file implies that the medical staff is aware of all the information and all the health problems of a person. The secret becomes a „shared” one and the central problem (of the patient) is the control – over the private life, over their own personal data, over the information that, otherwise, they would not want to be disclosed in a virtual environment. At issue is not only a balance between public interest (public health) and private interest or between personality rights that can end up in a conflicting position. If it will be proven that the interest of the medical care coordination prevails over the patient’s acceptance, then the electronic file will remain outside the true control of its owner. But, if, on the contrary, the patient has the prerogative of control (with justified, strict, limiting exceptions), then his right to limit access to the file will be recognized.

The error of random distribution of a civil case refers, in the matter of means of appeal, unlike the scenarios in which it is necessary to qualify or requalify a means of appeal, only the situation where the will of the party exercising the means of appeal is disregarded, respectively it is not registered on the role of the court of judicial control and, subsequently, randomly distributed the means of appeal exercised by the party, but another means of appeal, due to a genuine error occurred at the time of the registration of the means of appeal or, as sometimes happens in the judicial practice, because at the time of the registration of the means of appeal it is assessed that the party did not exercise the means of appeal provided by law, thus proceeding to the registration of the means of appeal provided by law, which should have been exercised by the party, and not of the means of appeal that was actually exercised.