Criminal Penalties for Serious Medical Errors: What Practitioners Need to Know

8 min 45 sec February 18, 2026 (Edited) الترجمة العربية

Written by

Mohamed Al Marzouqi

Partner,
Head of Office – Abu Dhabi,
Co Head of Dispute Resolution

m.almarzouqi@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

Dr. Omar Al Azawe

Of Counsel

o.alazawe@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

Introduction

The Medical Liability Law has advanced the UAE’s approach to medical negligence by limiting criminal liability to cases of gross medical error and by introducing procedural safeguards at the investigation stages. However, the continued availability of imprisonment for certain categories of medical error, coupled with imprecise criteria for “gross” negligence and limited grievance safeguards, risks chilling clinical practice, deterring talent, and encouraging procedural abuse. Targeted legislative refinement to Article 34 – paired with clearer standards, enhanced civil compensation and strengthened procedural guarantees- would better balance patient protection, public interest, and the realities of complex, clinical decision-making.

Current legal framework

Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2016 Concerning Medical Liability (“Medical Liability Law”), represents a marked improvement over the prior regime (Federal Law No. 10 of 2008), particularly with regard to holding doctors accountable for medical errors. One of these developments is that doctors may not be arrested or remanded in custody during investigations until the final medical report has been received from the competent health authority confirming the existence of gross medical negligence, in accordance with Article 34 of the current law. However, these positive developments do not preclude the review of certain provisions of the current law with a view to further improvement.

Article 34 defines the consequences of gross medical error. Where gross error is established, courts may impose imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine up to AED 200,000. If the gross error results in death, imprisonment up to two years and/or a fine up to AED 500,000 may be imposed. Where the conduct occurs under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the penalty escalates to imprisonment up to two years and a fine up to AED 1 million.

Article 5 of Cabinet Decision No. 40 of 2019 concerning the executive regulations of Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2016 provides the criteria for considering a medical error to be a gross medical error:

1. Unpardonable unfamiliarity with the well-established medical standards according to the level and specialization of professional practitioner.
2. Adopting a medically unrecognized method.
3. Unjustified deviation from medical standards and rules for practicing the profession.
4. The doctor is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or psychotropic substances.
5. Gross negligence or clear lack of perception upon taking well-established medical actions; e.g. leaving medical equipment in the patient’s body, giving him/her an overdose of medicine, failure to operate a medical device during or after the surgical operations, resuscitation or childbirth, failure to give the patient medically appropriate medicine, or any other act classified as gross negligence.
6. Practicing the profession deliberately beyond the scope of specialization or clinical privileges conferred upon the doctor under the professional license.
7. The doctor’s use of diagnostic or therapeutic means, with no prior practice or training, and without medical supervision.

The old law did not recognise professional negligence as grounds for criminal liability, but left it to the courts to determine whether criminal liability had been established, which opened the door to a huge number of criminal complaints against doctors. However, the current law has made significant progress and limits criminal liability to gross medical negligence only. The legislator’s approach in this matter was to distinguish between degrees of medical error in terms of simple and expected negligence and gross negligence in the doctor’s adherence to the accepted procedures in the case presented to him.

Strengths and gaps in the current approach

The shift to a gross-negligence threshold reflects international trends distinguishing expected, simple, or non-culpable error from egregious departures from accepted practice. The gatekeeping function of expert committees prior to custodial measures also mitigates reputational risks during the investigative phase. Nonetheless, three structural gaps remain:

1. Retention of custodial penalties for categories of gross negligence that fall short of intentional reckless conduct

First, the retention of the penalty of imprisonment may be viewed by professionals in the field as inconsistent with comparative legislation, which often confines itself to punishing the doctor administratively/disciplinarily with a fine or the suspension or withdrawal of their licence, in addition to civil compensation.

Article 34 of the current Medical Liability Law, provides:

 “Whoever proved to have committed a gross medical error as set forth herein shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of not more than one year and / a the fine of not more than AED two hundred thousand.

The penalty shall be the imprisonment for not more than two years and / or a fine of not more than AED five hundred thousand if the gross medical error results in the death of any person.

The penalty shall be the imprisonment for not more than two years and a fine of not more than AED one million if the crime referred to the first paragraph of this Article under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

Based on Article 34 above, the competent criminal courts shall have the authority to impose criminal penalties on doctors whenever they are proven to have committed gross medical negligence, with varying degrees of punishment depending on the aggravating circumstances.

We believe that punishing a doctor with imprisonment for committing a serious medical error may be justified and acceptable in some cases, such as when the doctor practises under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or works without a licence, which is a flagrant deviation from medical principles and rules in the practice of the profession. However, imprisonment may not be justified in other cases involving unjustified deviation or gross ignorance of medical principles, which places the doctor under psychological pressure and negatively affects his work and his ability to make sound and effective decisions in treating the patient.

2. Unclear criteria for gross medical negligence

Second, the definitional criteria for “gross” negligence invites inconsistent application. Some of the criteria mentioned are vague and not precisely defined, leaving room for interpretation by medical committees and the court. Some of them are also flexible in terms of wording, such as: (unjustified deviation from medical principles and rules or gross ignorance of medical principles). Therefore, they may not warrant criminalisation and the ensuing prison sentence, even if they result in the death of the patient. Imprisoning doctors and subjecting them to legal proceedings similar to what criminals and outlaws are subjected to, including criminal investigations and prosecution by the public prosecutor, is not commensurate with the medical profession and has many negative consequences. The most important of which are as follows:

• Qualified doctors will be reluctant to work in the country for fear of criminal prosecution.
• An increase in the cost of professional medical insurance for doctors.
• Increased psychological pressure on health sector workers.
• Duplication of punishment for the same medical error, where the doctor is punished more than once for the same error, sometimes as a criminal punishment and other times as a disciplinary punishment before disciplinary committees, including fines or licence revocation, in addition to financial compensation as a result of civil claims.
• Limiting the development of medicine locally, due to the restrictions imposed and the inability of the doctor to deviate from international medical norms in the case presented to him.

3. Grievance procedures and the need to take into account the overlapping causes of the patient’s death:

The third gap relates to committee findings which lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure due process. If a death is associated with gross medical negligence, the Higher Committee for Medical Liability often assumes that the gross medical negligence itself was the cause of death, whereas reaching this conclusion is not clear in all cases of death. The patient’s age, the nature of their illness, their delay in undergoing a particular medical procedure, or the delay in obtaining the consent of the patient’s family for surgical intervention at the appropriate time, etc., may all be interrelated factors that contributed to the patient’s death, and these are matters that must be taken into account by the competent committees through clear legislation that requires these committees in such cases to state whether the death was a direct result of gross medical negligence and to demonstrate this in the report in a clear and scientific manner. If several other causes and factors are involved, it is not appropriate to attribute the death solely to gross medical negligence.

Providing the necessary guarantees in terms of grievance procedures:

Pursuant to Article 3 of its founding resolution No. 14 of 2020, the Higher Committee for Medical Liability has the authority to uphold the decision of the Medical Liability Committee and may reject, amend or revoke the appeal.

Therefore, describing the doctor’s professional conduct as gross medical negligence may require better procedural safeguards. Although the doctor against whom the complaint is filed has the right to appeal the decisions of the Medical Liability Committee by submitting an appeal to the Higher Committee for Medical Liability, this right may be difficult to exercise in some cases, given that the Higher Committee has broad powers to amend the findings of the Medical Liability Committees without returning the file to those committees. Among such cases is that of a doctor who was not originally a party to the findings of the Medical Liability Committee’s report, but whom the Higher Committee, while considering the appeal, found to be seriously negligent for his participation in the case. The case of a doctor who was not originally a party to the findings of the Medical Liability Committee’s report, but whom the Higher Committee, while considering the appeal, found to have committed a serious error by participating with the medical staff at a certain stage of the healthcare provided to the patient, thereby allowing for criminal prosecution. The decision of the Higher Committee is final and cannot be appealed, as this doctor did not have the opportunity to appeal the report of the medical liability committee because he was not originally a party to it.

Practical implications for healthcare providers and institutions

The risk of criminal prosecution- even if ultimately resolved without imprisonment- carries operational and strategic consequences. Qualified practitioners may be deterred from practice in the jurisdiction, increasing pressure on recruitment and retention. Often, the heirs of a deceased patient realise the psychological pressure that filing criminal complaints with the public prosecutor’s office places on the doctor who committed the serious error, and the danger this poses to his professional future and the reputation of the health facility to which he belongs. This prompts some of them to abuse these procedures to pressure the doctor and the healthcare facility into reaching an amicable settlement for amounts that may exceed the compensation that could be obtained in court, in an effort by the doctor and the healthcare facility to avoid the serious damage that could be inflicted on them.