Raj Rattan In Personal Battle Over Vicarious Liability
- Details
- Published: Thursday, 22 July 2021 07:34
- Written by Chris Tapper
- Hits: 6511
Dental Protection’s Dental Director Raj Rattan is to fight a case in the High Court “As a matter of principle given the potential repercussions for the dental profession,” after the Court decided that as a practice owner, he was liable for treatment carried out by associate dentists at his former practice.
Deputy High Court Judge, Heather Williams QC, held that Dr Rattan was vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of three self-employed associate dentists, in respect of a Claimant’s dental treatment at his practice, and that the “Defendant owed the Claimant a non-delegable duty of care in respect of this treatment” according to a report published on the Old Square Chambers website.
Dental Protection issued a press release saying “Mr Raj Rattan has said he will appeal the decision of the High Court that he, as a practice owner, is liable to Mrs Hughes for the treatment carried out by associate dentists at his former practice. He did not carry out any of her treatment and sold the practice six years ago.”
The Claimant, identified as ‘Mrs Hughes,’ was represented by the Dental Law Partnership (DLP) and “Pursued a claim against Mr Rattan under vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care, despite the fact that the treating dentists have been identified and are willing to respond to the claim. DLP and their client refused to engage with them and instead pursued Mr Rattan as practice owner,” Dental Protection said.
“The vicarious liability claim focused on the relationship between Mr Rattan (as the practice owner) and the self-employed treating dentists, to ascertain whether it could be considered by the Court to be “akin to employment”. The non-delegable duty of care claim focused on Mr Rattan’s relationship with the patient and whether he owed her a duty that was of a nature that could not be delegated.”
“In relation to vicarious liability, the Dental Protection legal team argued that the associates worked in and for their own business and at their own risk as to profit or loss, and that their relationship with Mr Rattan was therefore not akin to employment.”
Dental Protection pointed out “The Preliminary Hearing judgment made clear that Mr Rattan’s conduct as a practice owner is not being criticised in any way.”
Dr Rattan is also a member of Dental Protection.
“However, it ruled that he is vicariously liable for the self-employed associate dentists working at his former practice, and that he owed Mrs Hughes a non-delegable duty of care when she attended his practice for dental treatment.”
The Old Square Chambers report, written by Daisy van den Berg said “Traditionally claims have been brought against each individual treating dentist.”
“It may be that, in future, claimants choose to sue practice owners instead. Dental defence organisations have already taken steps to review the way in which they offer cover.”
The report said “The Court did not accept the Defendant’s submission that it was necessary to show that the Defendant assumed a personal responsibility to provide the Claimant with dental treatment.”
“The Court held that the first factor was satisfied: the Claimant was a patient of the practice and not just a patient of each associate. The practice held her dental records and contact details and arranged her appointments. Payment was made to the practice in respect of a course of treatment. Her NHS treatment was provided and remunerated in accordance with the terms of the GDS Contract. The Court rejected the Defendant’s proposition that a high threshold of vulnerability must be established in addition to showing that the Claimant was a patient.”
“There was an antecedent relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant which placed Mrs Hughes in Mr Rattan’s care in respect of the provision of dental treatment, entailing a positive duty to protect her from harm caused by that treatment.”
The UK dental profession was shaken earlier this year when GDPUK reported that a County Court found a retired former practice owner liable for damages and costs relating to treatment provided by two self-employed associates working in his practice before he sold it."
The BDA News website said “He has had to defend this case out his own pocket and faces further potential costs estimated in the region of £100k to compensate the patient.”
A press release from Dental Protection said the indemnity organisation had “Recently extended its benefits for current and new practice principal members to include additional protection against vicarious liability and/or non-delegable duty of care claims relating to treatment provided by self-employed, contracted dental practitioners.”
The indemnity company said it would “Continue to challenge the principle of these often-unnecessary claims.”
Geoff Jones, Executive Director, Member Protection and Support at Dental Protection, said: “We have supported Raj Rattan in fighting this case both for himself and for his fellow practice owners. Its potential impact cannot be understated and we will continue to support him in an appeal.
“The self-employed dentists who were involved in the patient’s care were willing to respond to the claim, but DLP and their client refused to engage with them. Mrs Hughes had nothing to gain by refusing to engage with the treating dentists and pursuing Mr Rattan personally.”
“Sadly, there seems to be a growing trend in DLP pursuing claims like this against the practice owner rather than the self-employed dentists who provided the treatment and against whom negligence is alleged. It is disappointing as they cause real distress for the practice owner and pose a risk to the long-established arrangements that exist between practice owners and their associates.”
“We remain committed to fighting the principle of these often-unnecessary claims on behalf of members and the wider profession, but we also want to reassure practice principal members that they can request assistance from Dental Protection with these types of claims and are as protected as they can be in a rapidly changing dental landscape.”
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report