21.1 - GASTOS SANITARIOS FUTUROS. Arts. 113 y 114 DEL BAREMOS (PARTE 1)

Desmontando el baremo con Mariano Medina se trata de entrevistas de Manuel Castellanos con nuestro asociado de honor, el maestro Medina Crespo, donde dará una visión descriptiva y crítica del actual baremo de valoración de daño corporal en accidentes de circulación para su aprovechamiento en los asuntos profesionales de los abogados especializados en la materia.

Puedes consultar más información en https://anavarc.org/.

Una producción de Loupod (www.loupod.es).

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
You are listening to a production ofloupod welcome to Disassemble the scale with Mariano

(00:23):
Medina, a training podcast of anabaRC, National Association of Accident Victims Lawyers
and presented by Manuel Castellanos, aimedat professionals who have to use the assessment
scale of bodily damage of the yeartwo thousand fifteen to determine the compensations to
which victims of accidents are entitled.Manuel Castellano speaks as we are always presenting

(00:59):
in our podcast, called Desmontando elbaremo, Degranando el baremo como gustar a
Mariano. Well, it' scalled disassembly with Mariano Medina. How are
you, Mariano? How are youdoing? Well, then, after the
last episodes that we got into infull article forty and we messed up what

(01:19):
was going to be in a programin two pretty dense, the truth,
but it' s true that I' ve received very good reviews from the
same people who have understood it,which is the majority. Today we are
going to tackle another hot potato,which is the foreseeable costs of future healthcare,

(01:42):
which I believe or believe we willbe able to do in one programme
and we will see how in theend we will have to do it in
two. I am talking about articlesone hundred and thirteen which stipulate the foreseeable
costs of future health care and articleone hundred and fourteen which characterizes compensation for
future health care costs in the hospitaland outpatient settings. Traditionally what I do

(02:07):
is read the whole article what happens. I don' t know what you
think Mariano doesn' t read itor read the one hundred and thirteen free
them, because I' m notgoing to read it, because they'
re quite long. If you wantto read the article, the one,
you want them to read the one. You don' t have to.
The costs of future health care compensatefor the consequences referred to in paragraphs 2

(02:30):
and 3 and 4 of this Article. The economic value of health benefits in
the hospitable and amulatory sphere, whichthe injured person needs for life after the
injury has been established, and alsothose health benefits that occur in the home
environment that, because of their specializednature, cannot be provided with the help

(02:52):
of third person provided for in articles120 et seq. Well, I think
I' m still announced that youcan already begin to degrate the article Mariano.
A very good idea to have readit, because what you have to
do is read it, read it, You can dispense with the detail that

(03:14):
complicates that reference articles to not thereference to the specialized thing of rehabilitation.
I would have put it, putit in another paragraph, put it in
another paragraph, and left only whatyou read removing. That is very important,
because you have to believe it,you have to believe it and you

(03:37):
have to believe it against the legislator. That precept must be believed, even
though the legislator does not want todo what he says. And this is
key And this is the advice forlawyers, that is, in my opinion,
whenever there is a matter where thepermanent injury of the client generates these

(04:00):
future care. They must be claimedwithout any doubt in criminal life and nuanced
by the issue of the coasts thatare not usually recognized, because they always
take something away from you in civillife. Therefore, also in civil life,
that is, message of what isa little reading of this precept is

(04:27):
that future medical expenses are compensated,have to be remitted and have to be
remitted to those who support them,who are the harmed ones bear them.
And this is what follows from whatyou just read, it' s the
only thing that doesn' t setthe standard. And again, we face

(04:49):
the need to interpret correctly a preceptaccording to its true foundations of justice,
true foundations of the legislator, forgivenessof the law, the will of the
law, not the will of thelegislator, which is the will of the
insurer, the will of the law? Not the will of the legislator,

(05:14):
the will legis, the will legislatoris, which are different, The will legislatoris
is capital golfery, the will legis, the will of the law, is
the justice of resaltitoria. And thisis key And we have to break down.
It is very good to the titleof these interventions, because it is

(05:38):
to degranate the article, decompose it, recompose it giving rise to real work,
because it is that you cannot appear. I' ve been with this
article for six months, with thesetwo articles, and I' ll just
tell you that the other day,with a colleague who' s a very

(06:00):
expert on the subject, I showedhim that I hadn' t read it
or that I' d skipped it, because he' s so lazy with
this new style of legislating, thatthey' re terrible wills, and with
the number of traps involved in therule, that' s really what I

(06:23):
' ve summed up in a jobI' m preparing. I have summed
up saying that these two precepts constitutea grimory, a magical thing, a
witch thing, it is normative witchcraft. Well, from what you have read
it follows that future medical expenses aremade to them which, naturally and very

(06:46):
well in the title, are predictablebecause, as they are futures, they
have not occurred and, therefore,their foreseeable is what makes that future elemental
idea compensable at present. Well,before I go into it, I mention

(07:15):
a sentence of the First Chamber ofthe Supreme Court, of the excellent Magistrate
by the way, Mr Sir daughtersand another one that followed him from a
stupendous former Supreme Magistrate, already becausehe resigned that the Magistrate Professor of Valencia,
Mr Orduña. It' s interestingI' ve seen the sentence,

(07:41):
because the key to see is thatI get stuck with the amount of ideas
that can be said. The storyof the compensation of medical expenses is the
insurer' s effort not to paythem from the beginning, not to pay
them or to limit them very much. And this began in the sixty-

(08:03):
fifth year with the compulsory insurance regulation. How much was set by the mandatory
insurance limits and they told you themedical expenses up to so much, unless
they were provided in a center recognizedby the insurance consortium or by the good
guarantee fund. From there, thehistory of the resercitory treatment of medical stars

(08:28):
is a horror. It' sa horror movie that ends badly. With
this precept, the good dies andthe bad lives. That is the final
conclusion of this precept. Good tokeep us from getting too messy. In

(08:48):
the year two thousand seven, inthe year two thousand seven, the insurance
legislator modifies the tide of ninety-five, modifies the sixth general rule of
the first paragraph of the system andsays that, in any case, in

(09:09):
addition to what is the result ofthe tables, they will be compensated.
In any event, in addition tothe tables, the amount of all medical
expenses, including pharmacists that were notmentioned before until the date of health,
will be compensated. The two thousand- seven rule is the prohibitive norm for

(09:31):
the re- use of future medicalexpenses, because the original norm said the
same thing, but without setting atemporary milestone, i e, medical expenses
will be satisfied and then there wasa rule that often went unnoticed by lack

(09:56):
of reading, which was no oneread when there was the ninety- five
scale. The explanatory rules and theexplanatory rules were very important for many things,
for example, for the disposal ofnon- impeditive days, which was
very clear with the explanatory rule.And it was very important because the explanatory

(10:16):
rule relating to permanent injuries said thatthe pedigree expenses were paid clearly if the
medical expenses that are paid are putinto the section of the per capita lines
only the future ones. This rule. The foolish legislator in the year two

(10:37):
thousand seven, when he modifies therules, does not change it for him
does not realize, does not knownor what he has written. But the
fact is that since the year whenthe reform of two thousand seven came into
effect, future medical expenses have ceasedto be compensated, confiscated and it has
to be borne in mind that therehave been compensations of millions in previous years,

(11:03):
of millions because I do not saythe cost of art in strategic te,
even if it is only for elementarythings such as protecting you from pee,

(11:26):
the amount of diapers that you haveto buy well jurisdiction. Were you
unable to criticize the rule is shameful? He was unable to criticize her.
It is not the function of thelegislator but it often does criticize a rule,

(11:50):
saying that it is unfair, thatis to say that the boss had
to change or remove the, breakdown the thousand opportunities. I don'
t know n n n n nn. Not a hearing sentence. We
' ll see there will be somewho criticize the delectable prohibition rule of two
thousand and six. And when thenorm of two thousand six disappears because it

(12:11):
enters values of two thousand fifteen,the new variety. The two sentences I
mentioned remember that the Norva was badand says the first sentence with a euphemism,
with ephemism worthy of better cause.The reform states that in the year
two thousand and seven it became thesixth general rule of the first paragraph of

(12:37):
the ninety- five. She wasn' t lucky, she wasn' t
lucky, she was unfortunate, shewas slutty, she was embarrassing, she
was expropriating theory in my house.It was a seizure. Hold the word.
She was not fortunate and says thesame thing the later sentence that she

(13:00):
deserved and add more or less theymay almost lack to give. Thank God.
But now this has already been overcomein the scale of two thousand fifteen
and I wonder they have read it, what happens that they have read only

(13:20):
the title or have read only whatyou have read. Well, because if
they only read the title and whatyou' ve read, they give it
and pay it to give you achance to tell us about your theory of
restrictive concessions, good grace in thiscase. Is that the concessions? The
concessions? The concessions, the concessionsexcluding, well also because here is not

(13:43):
your restrictive obsession. Well restrictive conceptionis clumsy. Well, let' s
just go restrict so much that excludingit isn' t bloodthirsty. We'
re going to read the article nowin what' s interesting, which is
that it' s painters to lookat. This is clear, this is
key. We go to one hundredand fourteen at the beginning and says future

(14:11):
healthcare costs will be paid by insurersto public health services. And then you
say my mother, now you've been seen as the first legislator.
That' s quite a thing.You forget where you are. First he

(14:35):
forgets the person responsible, because thedebtor is responsible for the damage. The
companies are already abstracted here. He' s not responsible. This is a
civil liability and insurance law. Therefore, the person responsible for the payment is
responsible for the damage and here youtell us to be responsible, you forget

(14:58):
the person responsible. He is atotal perfect painter, but not only forgets
the person responsible, forgets the injured, because I don' t know,
doesn' t recognize, and theinjured person is the one who suffers the
injury. And they contradict what isestablished in article thirty- four, when

(15:18):
it says that, in case ofinjury, the prejudice is the victim,
the sufferer of the injury. So, here you see the downer. Here
it is seen that it is toppedup by the insurance world, thinking about
what it is going to pay notto pay, in saying that it will
pay not to pay and above all, so that it is apparently clear from

(15:43):
arguments to the contrary, that whatis not there put in the insurance world
is to turn off a hard oneto a harmed one who has expenses and
I relink with what we have saidas an initial message when talking about this
topic. It is necessary to claimthe future medical expenses that the client has,
that he has the injured if hewill have them, demonstrating his need,

(16:08):
demonstrating its amount. I perfectly setan example for you to see the
transcendence that has the contempt of theinjured person who performs this normal. There
is a beautiful sentence of the fourthsection of the Provincial High Court of Seville,

(16:29):
before the reforms of the two thousandseven, of Paul Blasco' s
sentence, very good. Where agirl, a young woman, has an
accident, it is not important andshe has a sequel of four dots,
four dots only that give her somepesetas, some euroettes. But it is

(16:51):
left as a sequel to a teardryness, the fencing, that is to
say, that his eye dries,and that demands, totally demands you see
deliciously put on three times a daya special eye drops that there is for
that, because if you do notput on the eye drops, the eye

(17:15):
dries, gets able to lose bythe looks and runs to the other fuck.
That look on that secuelilla, thatsecuelilla that generates you and reaps you
and permanently need to buy that golirio. Four points. Well, according to
the law, does not generate compensationfor future medical expenses a sequel that does

(17:42):
not exceed thirty points, the thirtypoints. There' s the four side
points screwed up. Then we'll see that if you pass ditteinta points,
you don' t charge the protodicor anything good. Instead of regulating
it. The law has regulated verywell. Medical expenses that conceptually cease to

(18:10):
be medical expenses in this law notin others, that is, those expenses
of type of care that have aspecific regulation. Prosthetics perform this no longer
fall under the concept of future medicalexpenses and are compensated through their corresponding coppers.

(18:33):
Blas well, then fixed that inthe precept the injured person is eliminated,
the responsible cause is eliminated by readingus the article that you have read
is this cannot be and, inmy opinion, there are so many inconsistencies,

(19:00):
absurdities, effects. We did notembarrass this rule, that there is
no other way for lawyers to mobilizethe jurisdiction to recognize this important one and
let us go once again, aswe have done in the last sessions,
to the basis of the rule.It makes sense or the sense that the

(19:22):
money of future medical expenses is paidto public health services is a gift.
It means that insurance companies have topay for the stakes. No. No.
No. The logical budget is thatit is based on the fact that

(19:44):
it is the public health service thatwill deal with the future existence of the
injured person. We are in thesame way that a few days ago we
were discussing the subject of article 40. If the budget from which the rule
of rationality to be paid to thenational health cermito is based is that the
national health sector is to take overthe senior doctors. If it is shown

(20:07):
that it does not assume them,the rule cannot be applied. The same
thing And how it is shown,because very simple, with clear bills less
I have had to go to thedentist because all the future expenses of my
mouth that has been destroyed after imaianbecause it turns out that that does not

(20:29):
cover me. Social security, andas I paid for it, makes no
sense to be paid to the NationalHealth Service. If I ask you and
I if you can stir up thenormal one by playing with the basis of
the rule to hold that any medicalexpense a future, according to what the

(20:51):
prince says at the beginning and withwhat he says denounced, would be told
to undo and how by proof andwhat better proof than the fact of making
the fruiture refutes the budget from whichthe rule departs to award to the public
health services. The good thing,there' s a very curious sentence.

(21:15):
It is the sentence of the provincialhearing of the first criminal section bar of
June 20 of the two thousand twenty- three. Man, even though we
want to do a thing here sofast with pills, it' s worth
telling the case. It makes itworth telling me, although we do not

(21:38):
exhaust the article, which demands alot, but it is worth telling because
we are going to see how theTribunal. What it does is interpret this
rule according to its foundation and that' s why a couple is right.
I think I seem to remember itsounds to me like one was Bolivian and

(21:59):
the other was Colombian. Or theAmericans who lived in Seville, who had
promised to get married, had beenliving a little bit and were getting married
in the near future if they wantedto. She was not registered in Seville

(22:22):
because she had come a few monthsbefore Britain, where she had done some
courses, some races and some things, and had come to Spain there and
had not had time to change herresidence. He was not yet resident in
Spain. One of them has arelative in a village in Navarra Pamplona.

(22:42):
It seems to me that it isconcrete and they are going to see it,
they leave both and go for thecerita, very quiet, the two
joints and at that moment a cardriven. I think I remember that for
a guy who was quite drunk,he decided by the facts that occurred,

(23:07):
appeared by the wax and ran themover and left them both. I think
that tetralégicos fuck in wheelchair one andthe other and then he, who lives
in Seville, has family. InSeville, she has no one, no

(23:33):
one with a family in Spain,she has a mother and a father and
the parents reside and work in Stockholm, Sweden. What does the mother do
when she finds out about the accident, leaves everything and goes to take care
of herself, to watch her daughterand then they last long enough the period

(24:02):
of healing the injuries and at acertain time, when she already with her
wheelchair and so on. For Isay in parentheses and it is relevant,
the two in wheelchairs cause love togo away, because in those conditions and
besides, apparently I am speaking ofmemory, he has an irascible character,

(24:26):
to react psychically in a bad wayto the situation. And the thing is,
they break the relationship between the twoof us, so she breaks her
bond, that she had that bond, that she was preparing to marry him,
and the mother sees that she hasto take care of her daughter for

(24:51):
life and what they decide. Totake the daughter to Sweden, to take
the daughter to Sweden, and thento the trial. The claim is raised
and the injured woman' s lawyerclaims expenses, I say futures and the
insurance company tells me how you futuresme or a hard one. This is

(25:15):
for the public health service. Andshe says I' m going to give
myself Sweden. And the question iswho did it belong to the proof that
Swedish social security will pay future medicalexpenses to a person who has not paid

(25:37):
for nothing will pay him or whowill pay the medical expenses? And since
the insurer merely invokes a lack ofactive legitimation of the injured woman to claim
the expenses that she has to bearnothing less and does not prove that she

(26:00):
will be covered by the Swedish socialinsurance that I very much doubt will cover
her. The provincial hearing says whatis the basis, what is the basis
for being given public health has beenserved, whether it is the public health
service that pays. In this case, as you are going to Sweden,

(26:21):
you will not be paid for bythe public health service and, therefore,
rhes go the money. The lawyerdared to claim something that the rule literally
does not allow. The hearing ofNavarre applies a criterion of reasoning, of

(26:41):
the basis of the judgment, ofthe precept and recognizes the flood giving rise
to an appeal of cassation that ithas filed, I believe, the insurer.
Everything I hope is still in ishanging out. Okay. The truth

(27:03):
is, it' s very interesting. Yes, yes, it is true
that the article I started reading andI started reading number one because it was
hopeful. We didn' t saythat good. He spends it. Room.
The Herpitarian ej are compensated according tosome rules, the sequels that result
from the survey have some requirements,because, like the States of Coma,

(27:26):
the neurological sequels, the core sessions, the points that you have pointed out
more than thirty points in order thatI said the restrictive concessions, but here
you have said exclusive concessions, because, as we anticipated at the beginning of
the program, because it will notbe possible in these thirty minutes that we

(27:51):
have, we have been appointed.Many colleagues tell me that they hear it
going to markings or to trials inthe car or waiting for the played ones,
because if they paid us for thewaits we make at the doors of
the played ones, we would bemillionaires all the lawyers and take advantage to
listen to the podcast, because,as always Mariano, it has been a

(28:15):
pleasure to listen to you, becausewe are already placed to continue with this
article one hundred and thirteen and theone hundred and fourteen that we have also
talked about today for the next programin which we can hope to finish it.
But I' m going to advancethat you' re writing a book
on matter that I' m sureeither doesn' t have more than one
volume, or the volume is goingto be very fat. You don'

(28:36):
t know yet. But well,all this when we have published the two
programs or three, because it willhave a support on paper, which is
the book that Mariano is preparing,and there it will be perfectly explained and,

(28:57):
moreover, has the good habit ofproviding a lot of jurisprudence that exemplifies
everything that counts in his manuals.Well, for nothing, thank you very
much, Mariano. See you nextfor this asset Brings a great machine gun.

(29:18):
Well, nothing thanks to everyone anduntil soon more and more brands are

(29:44):
betting on podcast as a communication tool. But what advantages it has with a
podcast. You talk to your clientin the ear by establishing a more direct,
close and emotional connection. It isa space of dialogue that creates community,
also increases the memory of your brandand your credibility. The lowpod we

(30:06):
want to help you. We area producer that drives your communication through the
word. For more information, visitour lowpo website. It' s or
write us to contact. Arroba lowcotis bet on podcast, bet on wolf