The UAE Supreme Committee of Medical Liability (’SCML’) – what the author described as the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ in an article from a few years back- has just celebrated its 6th birthday as an appellate committee (i.e. its jurisdiction is to only hear/review appeals from the decisions of subordinate committees) although it had -in its first incarnation-been around for over a decade as the tribunal of first instance – before the advent of Medical Liability Committees (‘MLCs’)- with jurisdiction to hear complaints involving medical errors referred to it by the Courts, Public Prosecution and Health Authorities. By all accounts it has performed admirably as both an appellate/first instance committee – navigating its way through the trials of COVID 19 (as did we all)- and coming out stronger and more robust from the experience.
In the Emirates 24/7 piece “Dentistry tops UAE medical errors list as complaints drop 42%” published Wednesday, July 1, 2026 at 3:20pm the erstwhile Chairman of the SCML– the highly-respected Consultant Physician and Endocrinologist Dr Abdul Razzaq Ali Al Madani (‘Dr Al Madani”) shares – albeit rather limited- data concerning the efficiency and performance of the SCML. Such is the significance of this raw data the author proposes to review of the data gives rise to- in a series of three commentary articles- this being the first- which examines the issue of appeal/grievance fees and the apparent impact that the introduction thereof may have- potentially – had on the numbers of appeals proceeding to the SCML.
Looking towards the future Dr Al Madani called for “strengthening professional accountability, stricter licensing regulations, improved preparedness of healthcare facilities, and greater patient awareness of rights and complaint mechanisms, noting that reporting incidents plays a vital role in improving healthcare quality.” It is his last ten words- underlined- that particularly resonate with the author.
Appeal/Grievance Filing Fees
1. Dr Al Madani reports that in 2021 the number of grievances/appeals reaching the SCML were 651 whereas this fell to 378 in 2025 the headline decrease of 42%. Dr Al Madani acknowledges that the introduction of a filing fee of AED 5,000 (by way of Cabinet Resolution No 72 of 2022) (‘the Filing Fee’) appears to have helped cut appeals (‘grievances’) by up to a half which he describes as helping to limit “unfounded” or “unserious” appeals. From the author’s own professional experience it is not uncommon for SCML decisions to fundamentally contradict MLC decisions and come to entirely different decisions and technical/medical reasoning positions. This is -in the author’s view- an important safeguard within the framework and integrity of the system and one that is widely respected. Internationally, many jurisdictions do not enjoy the benefits of a distinctive peer-review mechanism to help administer justice in medical malpractice claims. The SCML dutifully holds the medical industry to account for its breaches of professional standards and the author’s view is that to limit appeals being made to SCML – arguably- limits the effectiveness of its role to maintain medical standards.
2. It would be reasonable to suggest that a Filing Fee would not tend to limit someone with substantial resources e.g. well-paid medical professionals and financially strong Medical institutions -from disbursing the Filing Fee even if an appeal was ‘unfounded’ or ‘unserious’ or otherwise ‘unmeritorious’. Whereas it undoubtedly places a significant financial limitation on a Patient or Patient’s family who – perhaps are individuals of limited financial resources -irrespective of what lay individuals /without medical training think about the strength /weakness of their appeals. When the Filing Fee was introduced at the end of the summer of 2022 commentators voiced concerns on the- possibly detrimental- impact that the Filing Fee would have and -in the author’s opinion- these concerns appear to have been- -at least partially- justified by the data- and the clear and substantial reduction in appeals raises a legitimate question as to whether the Filing Fee may affect different categories of appellant unevenly. It is only the author’s impression but at the time when the Filing Fee was introduced there was suspicion that this might be a temporary measure to assist the SCML just coming out of the COVID-19 period where appeals were mounting and timescales were lengthening. However, as the country emerged from the post-COVID 19 aftermath and the SCML position ‘stabilised’ the Filing Fee remained in place.
3. As far as the author is aware, there has been no work/research carried out to investigate whether or not the reduction in the number of appeals has resulted in otherwise meritorious appeals NOT being advanced simply because of the introduction of the Filing Fee and the impecuniousity of potential appellants. Yet the numbers reasonably suggest that it is numerically likely that this is the outcome in some cases- although there is no hard data to prove the point either way. Commentators may plausibly assert that this- per se- tends to diminish the effectiveness of the vital role that complaints and appeals play in improving standards/quality leaving aside the individual stories of injustice and human suffering that mere statistics sometimes fail to reflect.
4. The Legislator did not introduce charges/filing fees when an individual makes the initiating complaint to the relevant Health Authority- to be considered by the subordinate Medical Liability Committees yet the logical justification of imposing a filing fee could- equally- apply at the initiating stage as well as at the appeal stage. Certainly, the business of the SCML is of the highest importance and its time should not be wasted with frivolous claims – however- the introduction of a Filing Fee does nothing to distinguish between appeals according to the respective merits or an appellant’s financial circumstances. Inversely, payment of the Filing Fee does not guarantee that an appeal will not be ‘frivolous’ so- clearly- other methods may have a better chance of saving the valuable time of the SCML than Filing Fees.
5. Clearly, there are legitimate public policy considerations that the ‘user should pay’ and that UAE Government services are commonly provided where fees are charged rather than paid for out of taxation revenues. In the closely analogous position a Plaintiff wishing to pursue a local Court case is expected to pay Court filing fees justified by his/her use of the Court structures etc. Judges, Court officers, administration staff wages/benefits form a significant part of the costs of the whole mechanism for the orderly administration of justice. However, local Courts recognise that in some cases access to justice for those of limited means may be dispensed – upon applivationwith pending the decision of the Court. In this example, if the Court waives the Court filing fee and the Plaintiff wins the case then the losing Defendant must pay the deferred Court filing fees. Taking the argument a step further it may be reasonably asserted that there are public policy considerations such that the Medical Industry as a whole are best placed to fund the actions of the Regulators -who are obliged to monitor and police that industry- to ensure standards and- of course- the MLC/SCML structures are such a central/important part of the Regulatory structures.
6. In the author’s 28 years’ experience as a medical malpractice lawyer in UAE ‘frivolous’ cases are somewhat of a rarity account for a very small proportion of cases. Similarly, only a handful of cases within the author’s experience have been truly conclusive where the existence of medical error was so obvious/clear ANY qualified professional could apprehend it and the opinion of the SCML is a foregone conclusion. In the vast majority of cases -that the author has been involved with- the medical arguments for/against liability have been much more nuanced /balanced and essentially the Patient/Physician may well each have a supporting qualified physician arguing on both sides -without any partisan duplicity -and in the end it comes down to just a difference of medical expert opinion. These ‘hard cases’ are at the forefront of ensuring medical standards are adhered to. It is fair to reflect that just because an appeal /grievance is successful or unsuccessful doesn’t automatically mean that BOTH sides did not have a reasonable basis to appeal or some merit notwithstanding one side ‘won’ and the other ‘lost’. Moreover, there are important considerations of public policy that may apply to ensure that every medical malpractice complaintant after the MLC decision should be able- as of right- to file an appeal/grievance to the SCML without any restriction– as was originally envisaged by the Legislator.
7. For the reasons discussed above it appears that there are important considerations of public policy that would support either:
7.1 Removal of the Filing Fee payable by Patient Appellants entirely and place the burden of payment upon the Respondents; or
7.2 Reduction of the Filing Fee payable by Patient Appellants to a more manageable amount – say AED 1,000-; or
7.3 Means testing of Appellants to assess the financial ability to pay the Filing Fee to ensure that the poorest citizens amongst us have access to justice.
8. It remains unclear what steps could be taken to limit ‘frivolous’ claims from wasting the time of the SCML. Obviously, there has to be some assessment of what claims are or are not ‘frivolous’ bearing in mind that most appellants are not medically trained and are not qualified to assess the technical medical aspects of the management of their cases. The question arises whether it is palatable to policy makers –that the odd frivolous appeal /grievance slips through-in the light of public policy considerations of access to justice and due process being available to all.
In the second article of this three -part series we will take a look at how other jurisdictions go about the business of reporting data related to medical error/negligence and what lessons can be learned therefrom.
This commentary is based on publicly available information and the author’s professional experience. It is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice nor does the author’s analysis represent the position of any government authority, medical committee or third-party institution.