Vicarious liability: implications for general practice

Thoughts from Dr Jo Scott-Jones, medical director.

Medical Protection Society (MPS) is going to run a webinar in mid-June (more information to come) to discuss in detail the implications of the rejection of an appeal made to the Supreme Court of a finding of vicarious liability held by a medical centre on behalf of an associated GP.  

The case stems from 2016, when GP Christopher Ryan was away from his work at Moore Street Medical Centre in Ashburton. A patient of his was seen by Peter Sparks, another specialist GP at the centre.

Dr Sparks prescribed an antibiotic from a class to which the patient had a documented allergy, even though more suitable alternatives were available. The patient suffered an allergic reaction and was hospitalised.

After investigating a complaint, the health and disability commissioner found Dr Sparks had breached the Code of Health and Disability Consumers’ Rights. The medical centre was found not to have directly breached the code, but was held vicariously liable for the GP’s mistake. You can read the NZ Doctor article here (paywalled). 

Having discussed the rejection of the appeal with MPS, the implications for practices in New Zealand is complex, but probably not as far reaching as we might fear. 

Pinnacle will advertise the webinar and encourage everyone to attend to understand more, but in essence the ruling is confirming what we know already; that if you are part of a team you hold collective responsibility for outcomes.  

The webinar will help give more clarity around what this means for those practices that work in shared expenses arrangements and the myriad of other business structures that are out there.  

If a practice has specific concerns in the meantime, they should contact MPS for specific tailored advice.