{"id":6008,"date":"2026-04-16T18:35:14","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T16:35:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/?post_type=news&p=6008"},"modified":"2026-10-27T08:50:11","modified_gmt":"2026-10-27T07:50:11","slug":"can-a-patient-appoint-their-doctor-as-heir","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/news\/can-a-patient-appoint-their-doctor-as-heir\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a patient appoint their doctor as heir? BGH ruling 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A long-standing relationship of trust between doctor and patient can grow beyond the purely medical. Gratitude, personal closeness and the need to give something back can lead a patient to want to remember their doctor in their will or in an inheritance contract. But this raises the question: does such an inheritance contract violate professional rules or public policy (gute Sitten)?<\/strong> The Federal Court of Justice (BGH)<\/strong> dealt with exactly this issue in 2025 \u2013 and delivered a remarkable ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The landmark ruling: BGH, IV ZR 93\/24 (July 2025)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On 2 July 2025<\/strong>, the BGH (case no. IV ZR 93\/24) decided a case that redefines the tension between medical professional law<\/strong> and civil law<\/strong>. The central question was:
Is an inheritance contract between a patient and their treating doctor valid even though the professional code of conduct prohibits doctors from accepting excessive gifts or benefits from patients?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core message of the ruling: a patient can validly appoint their doctor as heir under civil law.<\/strong> The medical activity as such does not automatically render the testamentary benefit invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The specific facts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 2016<\/strong>, a patient concluded a care, support and inheritance contract<\/strong> with his family doctor, which was notarised. In it, the doctor undertook to provide comprehensive services:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • ongoing medical treatment and advice,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • regular home visits and availability by telephone,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • support and care in the home environment.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    In return, the doctor was to become the owner of a piece of real estate after the patient’s death. After the patient died in 2018<\/strong>, the relatives disputed the validity of this contract, citing a breach of medical professional rules \u2013 a dispute that went all the way to the BGH.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The core conflict: professional law versus inheritance law<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Two areas of law collided:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Medical professional code of conduct:<\/strong> doctors may not accept substantial gifts or benefits from patients \u2013 in principle, this also includes testamentary dispositions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Civil law and testamentary freedom:<\/strong> under the German Civil Code (BGB)<\/strong>, every person has the right to decide freely what happens to their assets after their death (Section 1937 BGB).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The BGH asked the decisive question: how far may professional law restrict the freedom under civil law to arrange one’s estate?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The outcome was, surprisingly, in favour of testamentary freedom<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Professional law concerns the doctor \u2013 not the validity of the inheritance contract<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The BGH emphasised that a doctor’s professional duties merely govern his or her conduct under professional law<\/strong>, but not the patient’s power<\/strong> to dispose of his or her assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      This means: even if a doctor breaches the professional code of conduct, an inheritance contract concluded by a patient remains valid under civil law<\/strong>. Professional law therefore only concerns possible disciplinary measures<\/strong> against the doctor \u2013 not the legal validity of the inheritance contract itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      This distinction is central:
      professional law is intended to sanction the doctor (e.g. with a reprimand, a fine or, in extreme cases, withdrawal of the licence to practise medicine), while civil law<\/strong> protects the patient’s freedom to dispose of assets and private autonomy<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Testamentary freedom protected by the constitution<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The BGH also based its decision on a constitutional principle: testamentary freedom<\/strong> is part of the protection of property under Article 14 of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If the professional rule were interpreted to mean that a patient may under no circumstances leave anything to their doctor, this would be an impermissible interference with this freedom. The BGH therefore made clear: restrictions under professional law must not in effect destroy testamentary freedom<\/strong>. Any restriction must remain proportionate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Limits: protection through the prohibition of immoral transactions (Section 138 BGB)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      To prevent abuse, the BGH referred to a different control mechanism: immorality (Sittenwidrigkeit)<\/strong> under Section 138 BGB<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      An inheritance contract between doctor and patient is therefore valid in principle<\/strong>, but can be immoral in an individual case<\/strong> \u2013 for example if<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      • the doctor puts the patient under psychological pressure,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • there is deception or exploitation of dependency,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • the patient was no longer able to make the decision freely due to illness, such as dementia.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        The BGH therefore set aside the judgment of the lower court and referred the case back to the Hamm Higher Regional Court (OLG Hamm)<\/strong> \u2013 with the instruction to examine precisely these circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Practical implications for patients, doctors and relatives<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        The ruling has far-reaching consequences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        • For patients:<\/strong> in principle, it is possible to remember the treating doctor in a will or an inheritance contract. What matters is that the arrangement is voluntary and not immoral.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • For doctors:<\/strong> the contract is valid, but they must expect consequences under professional law<\/strong>. These range from reprimands to measures affecting their licence to practise taken by the medical association (\u00c4rztekammer).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • For relatives:<\/strong> they cannot challenge the inheritance contract solely because a doctor was involved<\/strong>. It must be proven that there was specific influence or manipulation<\/strong> of the patient.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          The BGH thus draws a clear line: a doctor as heir is legally possible, but not a special case without risk.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Open questions and further proceedings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          The OLG Hamm<\/strong> must now examine in the individual case whether the specific contract was immoral<\/strong> within the meaning of Section 138 BGB. Only then will it be finally established whether the doctor may actually keep the inheritance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          For practical purposes, however, the following already applies: such an inheritance contract should always be notarised<\/strong>, transparently documented<\/strong> and drawn up free from situations of pressure<\/strong>. This creates legal clarity and helps to prevent later challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          How you can safeguard your will or inheritance contract<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          If you are considering an inheritance contract with a doctor or a person close to you<\/strong>, it is advisable to seek legal advice at an early stage. Specialists in inheritance law \u2013 such as the Cocron law firm (Kanzlei Cocron)<\/strong> \u2013 will examine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          • which substantive and formal requirements must be met,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • how you can protect yourself against challenges<\/strong>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • which wording avoids allegations of immorality<\/strong>,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • and how the arrangement can be documented to create transparency.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            Notarisation and, where appropriate, a medical-psychological confirmation of testamentary capacity considerably increase legal certainty<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

            1. Can I validly appoint my doctor as my heir?<\/strong>
            Yes. According to the BGH ruling IV ZR 93\/24 (2025)<\/strong>, this is possible. The arrangement must be notarised and free from moral concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            2. What does \u201cimmorality\u201d (Sittenwidrigkeit) mean in concrete terms?<\/strong>
            Immorality exists where a legal transaction violates fundamental moral or legal values (Section 138 BGB) \u2013 for example in cases of exploitation, deception or pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            3. What professional consequences does the doctor face?<\/strong>
            Even where contracts are valid under civil law, the doctor can face professional proceedings, for example reprimands, fines or withdrawal of the licence to practise \u2013 this is decided by the medical association (\u00c4rztekammer)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            4. Can relatives challenge the contract?<\/strong>
            Yes, but they must prove that the patient was not able to decide freely<\/strong> or was influenced<\/strong>. The mere fact that a doctor became heir is not sufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            5. How can such a contract be safeguarded?<\/strong>
            Through notarisation, written documentation of the reasons, the involvement of an independent witness and, where appropriate, a medical certificate of testamentary capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            With its ruling (IV ZR 93\/24), the BGH<\/strong> has provided an important legal clarification<\/strong>:
            a patient may in principle appoint their doctor as heir<\/strong> \u2013 testamentary freedom is preserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Nevertheless: transparent drafting, notarial safeguards and professional advice are essential in order to prevent allegations of manipulation and to minimise both legal and professional-law risks<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            In its ruling of 2 July 2025 (IV ZR 93\/24), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a patient can validly appoint their doctor as heir under civil law \u2013 professional rules affect the doctor, not the validity of the inheritance contract.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","news-kategorie":[30],"class_list":["post-6008","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry","news-kategorie-erbrecht"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/6008","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"news-kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news-kategorie?post=6008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}