E-3｜Rejection of Compensation Decision in the Death of Zifu Lin

Formal decision by Patientforsikringen rejecting compensation and denying causation between the child’s death and delayed or improper treatment by the family doctor.

I. File Summary

This page archives the formal decision issued by Patientforsikringen on 9 January 2014, rejecting compensation in relation to the death of Zifu Lin in May 2013 and denying that her death was caused by misdiagnosis, failure to diagnose, or delayed treatment by the family doctor Jørgen Meile.

This document is particularly important because it proves that the family had already initiated a formal domestic medical-liability process shortly after the death, and explicitly argued that the child’s death could have been avoided if she had received correct treatment on 24 May 2013.

This is not a retrospective memory statement. It is a formal case document within the Danish system, showing that the death had already entered an official processing path at the time, but was ultimately denied by the authorities.

II. Basic Information

III. Core Content of the Decision

The decision explicitly states that the family sought compensation on the basis that: the child’s death could have been avoided if she had received correct treatment from the family doctor on 24 May 2013.

Du har søgt erstatning på vegne af din nu afdøde datter, fordi du mener, at hendes død kunne være undgået, hvis hun var blevet behandlet hos jeres praktiserende læge, Jørgen Meile, da hun havde feber, hostede, kastede op og havde løbende næse ved konsultationen 24. maj 2013.

However, Patientforsikringen concluded that: no compensation should be granted, arguing that the treatment on 24 May 2013 was “consistent with what an experienced specialist would have done in a similar situation,” and that there was not sufficient basis at the time to suspect a serious illness.

Vi har vurderet, at behandlingen ved Læge Jørgen Meile 24. maj 2013 var i overensstemmelse med den behandling, som en erfaren specialist ville have foretaget i en tilsvarende situation.

IV. Timeline in the Official Narrative

V. Evidentiary Significance of the File

1. It proves that the family formally pursued medical liability shortly after the child’s death, rather than raising objections only years later.
2. It proves that the family’s core legal claim was already clear: if the child had received proper treatment on 24 May 2013, she might not have died.
3. It also reveals the official logic of refusal: focusing on the superficial state observed during one consultation, while minimizing the continuity of the symptoms and the risks facing an infant.
4. The file further confirms that Danish domestic procedures had already been initiated at an early stage and had already produced a negative outcome, giving it procedural value for later international complaints.

VI. Appeal Information (As Stated in the Document)

The final page of the decision states that the decision could be appealed within 3 months to Patientskadeankenævnet.

This shows that the death case had already entered a formal domestic procedure in 2013–2014. The issue was not the absence of a legal path, but that the path was institutionally rejected at the time.

VII. File Download

VIII. Contact and Supplementary Materials

To submit additional information, media inquiries, or material related to the case, please contact:

connectbeizili@proton.me

IX. Related Reading

This page represents one of the earliest confirmed stages of the case. For the later development of psychiatric labeling, administrative handling, and child-removal structure, see the related pages below.