Sixteen years after disputed MRI and 'lies', family wins trial after 'perfectly healthy' daughter dies

Les premiers examens écartent dans un premier temps une pathologie grave (illustration). MAXPPP – DIRK WAEM

Bernard Elhaik and his family have finally obtained a hearing against the AP-HP and a neurologist after 16 years of fighting. A misinterpreted MRI and “lies” that they believe are responsible for the death of Carole Darmon, Bernard's daughter.

A trial as a “stepping stone” to the truth: after 16 years of fighting, Bernard Elhaik and his family have obtained a trial against the AP-HP and a neurologist for a misinterpreted MRI and “lies” that, according to them, led to the death of his daughter, Carole Darmon.

This Friday, March 14, 2008, this 36-year-old woman “in perfect health”, mother of a fourth child born a week earlier, complains of an atrocious migraine.

At the Bichat hospital in Paris, initial tests rule out a serious pathology. A neurologist, Tarik S., signs her discharge on Saturday after an MRI that he considers normal.

On Monday morning, the doctor calls her back for a further test. Carole Darmon returns to the hospital and has a “massive” stroke that afternoon. In a vegetative state, she died on November 6, 2016.

In his apartment in the Paris region, Bernard Elhaik tells AFP about the young woman Carole was, “extremely dynamic” and “very happy”. “Of course”, concedes this father with contained emotions, “when she fell into a coma, well… everything stopped.”

“Error of interpretation”

After having accepted the inevitability of a rare disease, Bernard Elhaik discovers a few months later his daughter's medical file and in particular the MRI on which appears, in the opinion of the experts, “an error of interpretation” manifest: signs “discreet but indisputable” of hemorrhage in the brain.

The investigation focuses on a disorganization of Bichat which would have prevented a radiologist from directing and then analyzing the disputed examination.

200% Deposit Bonus up to €3,000 180% First Deposit Bonus up to $20,000

Who then managed the MRI ? A radiographer declared having carried it out “alone”, on the instructions of the neurologist Tarik S. who then studied her. For Bernard Elhaik, impossible. For a while, this dental surgeon read books on cerebral neurology and scoured libraries.

The one who has multiplied the procedures, in addition to the criminal one, and who is furious with the experts who according to him have too easily exonerated the hospital and its doctors, is convinced of having identified a radiologist who did the MRI but without signing the report in time, thus condemning according to him his daughter. The investigation did not implicate her, to the great displeasure of this father.

On November 29, a Parisian investigating judge ordered a trial for the AP-HP and Tarik S. for involuntary injuries with total incapacity to work of more than three months. Two years of imprisonment are incurred.

Reached by the AFP, the AP-HP did not wish to comment “proceedings are underway on the merits”, recalling that “this case (had) initially been the subject of a dismissal”, then, after an appeal, of “requests for dismissal in October 2024”.

Tarik S.'s lawyer, Bernard Grelon, said he was, “deeply surprised” by this trial, but “convinced that he could demonstrate the absence of an offence” by the doctor.

In his order, which the AFP had knowledge, the magistrate emphasizes “the length and complexity of this legal procedure” . This has “added to the ordeals suffered by this family” who “'need' a trial to be held” .

On the merits, the judge identifies two faults: on the one hand, “the Saturday exit without reading the examination by a radiologist and without writing a written report” . On the other hand, “the latency period”, “several hours”, “for the care of Carole Darmon on Monday”.

The magistrate also points out the possibility that the doctors did not question the patient about the medications she was taking, including one that could increase her risk of stroke.

“Really responsible”

The family's lawyer, Romain Boulet, speaks of a “procedure appalling” in which he had “resort to a private detective.” “I have never encountered such resistance from the institution to bring out the truth.”

And to hope that this trial will allow “to answer this simple question that haunts Carole Darmon's children: 'Why did mom die ?'”

For Bernard Elhaik, the correctional hearing is already a “very big victory” : his grandchildren “are asking themselves questions” and, he adds, “I wouldn't want (…) Eden to feel guilty”. “For them, it is extremely important that this trial takes place and that the truths come out.”

But “it's not exactly what I expected”, tempers the septuagenarian. “This trial will only be a springboard to go further and look for those truly responsible.”