Dental practice is held vicariously liable for independent dentist’s treatment
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 04 March 2020 07:33
- Written by News Editor
- Hits: 3741
An article by Hill Dickinson highlights a recent judgement which, they say, has the potential for far-reaching implications for the dental profession and how dental services are provided. A dental practice has been found to owe a non-delegable duty of care to an NHS patient and be vicariously liable for the associate dentist’s treatment.
Hill Dickinson reports: “It has, perhaps since the inception of the NHS, been the case that dental practitioners working outside a hospital setting are generally self-employed and operate independently from the practice at which they provide their services. In recognition of this, dentists secure their own professional indemnity.
“However, on 28 January 2020, HHJ Belcher sitting at the County Court in Leeds determined that the particular facts of the relationship between the claimant, Dr Agedo as the treating dentist, and The Forum Dental Practice Limited (‘FDPL’) were such that she could find not only that FDPL owed the claimant a non-delegable duty of care, but that it was also vicariously liable for any negligent treatment Dr Agedo provided.
“It must be stressed that this is a first instance decision of a preliminary issue, namely whether or not the practice owed the claimant a non-delegable duty of care and/or could be vicariously liable for the claimant’s treatment. Liability in respect of the treatment has not yet been determined.
“The claim arose from Dr Agedo’s extraction of the claimant’s LL8 on 2 September 2014. The claimant was not a regular patient of Dr Agedo or, indeed, FDPL, and how she came to be treated by Dr Agedo is key to understanding why HHJ Belcher made her findings of a non-delegable duty and vicarious liability against the practice.
“Also of note is that whilst Dr Agedo had taken no part in proceedings and his whereabouts were unknown, he did have professional indemnity insurance but, not having notified his professional indemnifier, they declined cover. However, HHJ Belcher explicitly recorded that these factors were not a relevant consideration when determining whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a non-delegable duty or vicarious liability on the practice.”
Link to article https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dfe2363f-b916-4ec8-8659-2f4a6c087639
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report