In past times, the Higher Medical Liability Committee had last say over whether a medical error happened and the degree of physician guilt in malpractice proceedings. Even if the parties engaged in doubt the truth or fairness of the results, once the committee's decisions were released there was no place for more debate. This recent decision drastically changes this position by permitting a more thorough review of the case and a more extensive scope for defendants to appeal, therefore opening a route for court-based challenges to both the legal and committee conclusions.

Emphasizing the significance of this achievement, legal consultant Dr. Hassan El Hais of Awatif Mohammad Shoqi Advocates & Legal Consultancy He said that although legal decisions might once be challenged, the medical committee's recommendations were essentially "final." Medical professionals and defendants now, however, have the ability to contest not only the committee's medical findings but also the court decisions. According to Dr. El Hais, this change improves justice and allows a review of once unacceptable committee decisions.

Once the Higher Medical Liability Committee released its finding, the parties engaged had no legal basis for requesting a court review before this decision. Under the new system, nevertheless, defendants have administrative court rights to challenge committee conclusions. Should the court decide it essential, it could designate an impartial medical committee to go over the matter from top down. Examining all case facts, verifying the original results, and deciding whether the committee's conclusions were whole and correct constitute this review. Such a secondary review process could either support the initial verdict or point up discrepancies that might affect the outcome of the case, therefore producing a more fair and complete assessment of medical malpractice events.

Dr. El Hais further pointed out that by adding more inspection, this reform enhances the legal foundation in malpractice situations. Once perfect choices can now be examined and challenged, therefore enabling a more equitable outcome for all those engaged. This new degree of responsibility improves system credibility and openness and gives patients and doctors more hope that medical liability matters will be closely investigated.

This decision also affects the general legal scene. Under old Federal Law No. 4 of 2016, the Higher Medical Liability Committee retained sole power in certain matters; its findings were kept free from court involvement. But the Supreme Court's ruling clearly shows that court review is not totally immune to administrative action, particularly those involving medical culpability. Permitting appeals of both legal rulings and the committee's conclusions helps to maintain the notion of judicial control and supports the rights of medical professionals and patients to challenge the committee's conclusions if needed.

The recent decision should increase public confidence in UAE justice system. Appealing and court-based evaluations help to confirm the court's dedication to guarantee just and open results in medical malpractice cases. Dr. El Hais emphasizes that this additional layer of supervision supports a stronger, more fair legal framework in healthcare, therefore encouraging greater responsibility and strengthening public faith in the system's capacity to administer justice. This historic decision finally represents a major improvement in UAE medical liability case management, therefore establishing a precedent for thorough judicial control in the healthcare industry.

UAE introduces new law allowing medical malpractice rulings to be appealed

Comments