The Federal Court of Justice Confirms the Validity of Bequests to Doctors
Can a doctor be validly bequeathed a legacy in a patient’s will?
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) recently addressed this question. In a ruling dated July 2, 2025 (Case No. IV ZR 93/24), the court clarified: Even though medical professional codes generally prohibit gifts from patients to their doctors, this does not automatically render such a gift invalid when made as part of a bequest. Rather, the decisive factor is the fundamental freedom of every patient to determine the disposition of their estate after death.
The testator wished to bequeath a piece of land to his family doctor after his death, on the condition that the doctor provide him with medical care and advise him on health matters such as nursing care or applications to government agencies; the doctor’s activities in this context went beyond the services that doctors typically provide to their patients. The doctor and patient entered into an agreement for this purpose, referred to as a “care, support, and inheritance contract.”
However, professional regulations exist that prohibit doctors from accepting gifts from patients. It was therefore disputed whether the property could be validly bequeathed to the doctor despite the professional prohibition. Additionally, the question arose as to whether the bequest should be classified as contrary to public policy and therefore void.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that while the bequest does violate the professional prohibition on accepting gifts, this does not “automatically” render it invalid.
The BGH emphasizes that the testator’s “freedom to make a will” is of great importance. This means that every person should be able to decide as freely as possible to whom they bequeath their estate after death.
A prohibition against making a specific bequest (e.g., to a treating physician) may not automatically override this freedom of the testator.
The professional prohibition on bequests is indeed a rule imposed on physicians (e.g., by medical associations). However, in the view of the Federal Court of Justice, this prohibition is not intended to protect the patient or the patient’s heirs or relatives, but primarily the integrity and independence of the medical profession. The prohibition is directed only at the physician, not at the patient. Enforcement of the prohibition, which is directed solely at the physician, can be sufficiently ensured through professional sanctions. The Federal Court of Justice also rejected the claim of a violation of public policy in the present case.