Court Of Cassation Confirms Risk Of Increased Liability In Medical Grievances To The Higher Committee For Medical Liability

In a medical-malpractice matter, the Dubai Health Authority's Medical Liability Committee ("MLC") initially classified the doctor's conduct as a "minor" medical error. The doctor, seeking a finding of no liability, filed a grievance to the Higher Committee for Medical Liability ("HCML"). The patient did not file a grievance. Upon reassessment, the HCML concluded that the doctor's conduct amounted to a gross medical error, thereby elevating the level of liability above the MLC's original finding, notwithstanding the fact that the patient had not challenged that finding.

The doctor and hospital argued before the Dubai Court of Cassation that this outcome violated the long-standing legal principle of "an appellant should not be harmed by his own appeal", (a rule of public order that prevents a litigant from being placed in a worse position due to their appeal).

Recent Court of Cassation Ruling

In its judgment dated 11 September 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation rejected the argument that the HCML's escalation violated the procedural maxim that "an appellant should not be harmed by their own appeal." The Court held that this principle applies to judicial proceedings and adjudicative outcomes, and does not extend to pre-litigation evidentiary preparation or the work of technical expertise. Accordingly, the court concluded that the HCML's work is a technical opinion on medical matters, and are not bound the procedural constraints applicable to judicial adjudication.

Implications of the Principle

This ruling confirms that the HCML may increase the level of liability beyond the MLC's original finding, even where only the doctor or hospital files a grievance to the HCML and the patient does not. The Dubai Court of Cassation found no violation in relying on the HCML's reassessment and, in doing so, expressly limited the scope of the maxim that an appellant should not be harmed by their own appeal to judicial outcomes, and not to the pre-litigation evidentiary/technical stage (i.e., the MLC/HCML process).

The practical implications include:

• Doctors and hospitals (jointly "Healthcare Providers") filing grievances to the HCML risk exposure to a more severe liability than originally determined by the MLCs.
• Increased liability could have follow-on effects, such exposure to stricter professional disciplinary measures, and, in some cases, potential criminal liability.
• The ruling recalibrates the risk assessment for Healthcare Providers considering whether to challenge MLC findings.

What This Means for You

Healthcare providers should carefully weigh whether to file a grievance (appeal) against an MLC report, as doing so may lead to a more severe liability finding, even in circumstances where the patient does not file a grievance.

At the same time, Healthcare Providers should consider the separate avenue of judicial review of HCML reports, which the Union Supreme Court, has characterized as administrative decisions that are open to challenge before federal courts. For more details on this avenue of judicial review, please refer to our earlier client alert dated October 11, 2024.

While judicial review does not remove the risk of an increased assessment at the HCML stage, it can serve as a mitigation pathway to challenge an adverse HCML report and should be factored into the decision whether to pursue a grievance against an MLC finding.

Our team is available to discuss how this development could affect ongoing or potential medical malpractice disputes, and to advise on strategic considerations when deciding whether to file grievances or pursue judicial review. Please feel free to contact the key contacts.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.