The Higher Medical Committee found extreme negligence and lack of foresight in the care provided, while the Court refused the doctor’s appeal, citing two independent medical reports establishing her direct responsibility
Abu Dhabi: The Federal Supreme Court, in chambers, refused to accept an appeal by a doctor against a ruling that held her 80% responsible for a medical error that led to the death of a patient, stating that “the documents were sufficient to determine her responsibility, and showed that her error was the direct and effective medical cause of the outcome that the patient suffered.”
The court emphasised in its reasoning that the doctor’s responsibility is not based on their obligation to achieve a result, which is the patient’s recovery or the success of the operation performed, but rather on their obligation to provide the necessary care for the patient’s recovery, all in accordance with established scientific principles and what the technical work of the profession requires.
The court pointed out that the medical contract stipulates a safety obligation, requiring the physician to ensure that the patient is not exposed to any harm or danger from the equipment and instruments used in medical practice, or from the medications administered, and that the physician does not cause the patient a new illness unrelated to the underlying condition being treated.
This obligation also requires the physician to refrain from causing pain or discomfort unrelated to the patient’s primary ailment. The Higher Medical Committee concluded that the medical care provided by the physician did not meet accepted medical standards.
She was accused of failing to properly assess the patient’s condition, failing to provide appropriate treatment and support, such as timely artificial respiration, and failing to diagnose the cause of “multi-organ failure” in the intensive care unit, and was held 80% responsible for the medical error.
The Committee explained that her actions involved extreme negligence and a lack of foresight in taking the standard medical procedures, and resulted in the patient’s death, which meets the legally stipulated conditions for medical malpractice.
Another report from the local medical liability committee concluded that there was medical negligence in the healthcare provided to the patient, represented by the failure to admit him to the intensive care unit despite his critical condition, and the failure to deal with the worsening of the condition and escalate healthcare in a timely manner, which led to the deterioration of his condition that ended in death.
The report concluded that the medical error was distributed in varying proportions among the hospital and some of its doctors, including the female doctor.
The court noted that there were two medical reports which definitively established the doctor’s responsibility for the case.
She stated that the appealed ruling referred to the appealed ruling, which included the doctor’s responsibility, based on the decision of the Higher Medical Committee, which summarised the facts, then characterised them, then proved the doctor’s error, according to the provisions of the law. This summary was reasonable according to the medical standards in force within the country, and the documents were sufficient to decide on her responsibility, and to show that her error was the direct and effective medical cause of the result that the patient suffered.
Therefore, what the doctor is complaining about regarding the appealed ruling’s violation of the law, the deficiency in reasoning, the violation of the right to defence, and the contradiction of what is established in the documents is unfounded.
The court concluded that the doctor’s appeal was based on grounds other than those specified in Article 175 of the Civil Procedure Code, and decided not to accept it in chambers.
Source: Emirates 24|7