Medical Expert Evidence Before the Kuwaiti Courts: Appointing the Expert, Challenging the Report, and How It Differs from the Ministry of Health Technical Committee

Introduction

Very few medical negligence claims before the Kuwaiti courts are decided on the parties' submissions alone. However experienced a judge may be in the law, he cannot decide for himself whether a drug dose was appropriate, whether a delay of a few hours in operating is what caused the complication, or whether the outcome the patient suffered is one of the recognised risks of the procedure for which no physician is answerable. These are purely technical questions, and the only legally recognised way of bringing them into the case is medical expert evidence.

That is why many medical claims are won or lost at the expert stage rather than at the hearing: in how the expert's terms of reference are drafted, in what documents and medical records are placed before him, in whether the parties attend his meetings, and in whether the report is challenged at the right time and in the right way. Yet many litigants enter this stage without understanding its rules and lose opportunities that are hard to recover later before the trial court.

This article deals with the procedural side of medical expert evidence in Kuwait: when an expert is appointed, who asks for one, how the expertise is conducted, what weight the report carries, how it is challenged, how it differs from the report of the Ministry of Health technical committee, and who bears the expert's fees. The substantive basis of the liability of physicians and hospitals is covered in our earlier articles: Medical Errors in Kuwait: Proving Fault, Compensation and Criminal Liability, Medical Liability in Kuwaiti Law: Errors and Compensation, The Legal Framework for Holding Healthcare Providers Accountable, and Physicians' Errors and the Patient's Right to Compensation.

Quick Answer

• Medical expert evidence is a means of proof the court resorts to when the outcome of a case turns on a technical medical question it cannot assess itself. It is ordered on the application of a party or by the court of its own motion.
• The expert is usually drawn from the Experts Department of the Ministry of Justice or from the registered lists of experts; where the speciality requires it, the court may call on specialist physicians from outside those lists.
• The terms of reference define the limits of the expert's task. What is not expressly asked may not be examined, so drafting them carefully is among the most important things counsel does.
• The report is advisory and does not bind the court, which may adopt it in whole or in part or set it aside. If the court adopts it, it need not answer every objection raised against it.
• Objections are made by a written memorandum after the report is filed, and may lead to the task being returned to the same expert, a new expert being appointed, or a three-member panel being constituted.
• The Ministry of Health technical committee's report is an administrative technical opinion issued in a complaint procedure; the court-appointed expert's report is produced within adversarial litigation. Neither binds the court, though each carries real practical weight.
• Expert fees are deposited up front by the party the court designates (usually the applicant or the claimant) and ultimately form part of the costs of the action, which the losing party bears as a rule.

I. The Legislative Framework for Medical Expert Evidence in Kuwait

Kuwait has no stand-alone statute on "medical expertise". Medical expert evidence is governed by the general rules on expert evidence before the courts, adapted in practice to the particular nature of medical questions. The principal texts are:

• Decree-Law No. 39 of 1980 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters, which regulates expert evidence as a means of proof: how an expert is appointed, how he performs his task, how the report is filed, the parties' right to discuss and challenge it, and the court's power to assess it.
• Decree-Law No. 40 of 1980 on the Organisation of Expertise before the Courts, which governs the Experts Department of the Ministry of Justice, the conditions for registration of experts, their duties, and how tasks are allocated among them.
• Decree-Law No. 38 of 1980 promulgating the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, as regards the interlocutory judgments by which expertise is ordered, the computation of time limits, and the costs of the action and who bears them.
• Law No. 70 of 2020 on the Practice of Human Medicine, Dentistry and Allied Professions, which regulates the duties of physicians and healthcare facilities and the administrative route for medical complaints before the Ministry of Health. It is the reference point for understanding the role of the administrative medical committees.
• Decree-Law No. 67 of 1980 promulgating the Civil Code, as the source of the rules of tortious and contractual liability on which the claim for compensation rests. Those rules dictate what the expert must examine: fault, damage and causation.
• Law No. 17 of 1960 promulgating the Code of Criminal Procedure and Trials, where the matter takes the criminal route and the medical expertise is usually entrusted to forensic medicine by the Public Prosecution or the criminal court.

Taken together, these texts make clear that medical expertise is not a "judgment" delivered by a physician. It is a tool the court uses to form its own view on a technical question, and the court retains the final word on the weight of the evidence and on applying the law to the expert's findings.

II. Appointing the Medical Expert: When, on Whose Application, and How the Terms of Reference Are Drafted

1. When does the court appoint a medical expert?

The court orders medical expertise whenever the decision depends on a technical question that cannot be resolved by reading the documents or hearing witnesses. In medical liability cases an expert is required in almost every instance, because the three elements on which compensation rests - medical fault, damage, and the causal link between them - are technical in nature. Whether the physician departed from the accepted standard of a practitioner of his level in the same circumstances, whether what the patient suffered flowed from that departure or was a known complication within the range of accepted risk, and what degree of disability resulted, are all questions that only a medical opinion can settle.

Conversely, the court may dispense with an expert where the file already allows it to form a view: for instance, where a detailed medical committee report is on file and has not been seriously contested, or where the error is obvious and requires no speciality to identify, such as operating on the healthy limb rather than the injured one or leaving an instrument inside the patient. Even so, whether or not to appoint an expert remains within the trial court's discretion.

2. Who applies for the expert?

Any party may apply: the patient as claimant seeking to prove fault, or the physician and hospital as defendants seeking to establish that what occurred was an accepted complication. The court may also appoint an expert of its own motion where it considers the decision requires it. In practice the application usually comes from the claimant, who bears the burden of proving fault, damage and causation.

The application should be made clearly in the statement of claim or a subsequent memorandum, setting out why expertise is necessary and the specific points the expert is asked to examine. A bare request "for an expert to be appointed" may be translated by the court into general terms of reference that do not serve the applicant.

3. The Experts Department, the lists of experts and the choice of speciality

As a rule the task is referred to the Experts Department of the Ministry of Justice, which comprises appointed experts in various fields and allocates the task to the competent expert or experts. In delicate medical matters the Department or the court may call on consultant physicians in the relevant speciality, since the issue may lie in neurosurgery, anaesthesia or obstetrics, and not every general expert is equipped to assess it.

A party has a genuine interest in asking the court, at the time of appointment, that the expert or one member of the panel be from the very speciality in dispute, and in saying so in the application. Expertise carried out by a physician outside the speciality is more exposed to objection and less persuasive to the court.

4. Drafting the terms of reference

The terms of reference are the limits within which the expert works; in principle he may not examine what he has not been asked to examine. Drafting them is therefore the single most important thing counsel does at this stage. Well-drafted terms in a medical negligence case usually cover the following:

• Examining the patient's complete medical file at the hospital or clinic, and any files at other facilities where the patient was treated before or after the events.
• Describing the patient's condition before the disputed intervention and any pre-existing illnesses.
• Stating whether the diagnosis, treatment or surgical intervention conformed to established medical practice in such a case, and whether any error occurred in diagnosis, choice of treatment, execution, or subsequent follow-up.
• Stating whether the complication the patient suffered is a known and foreseeable complication of the intervention even with due care, or resulted from a departure from accepted practice.
• Establishing the causal link between the alleged fault and the harm suffered, and whether the harm would have occurred in any event.
• Assessing the damage: the nature of any disability, whether it is permanent, its percentage, and the future treatment the patient requires and its approximate cost.
• Identifying the role of each person involved in treatment (treating physician, anaesthetist, nursing staff, hospital management) where several participated.

The court orders the expert's appointment by an interlocutory judgment setting out the terms of reference, the body appointed, the amount of the deposit, who must pay it and by when, and the hearing at which the case will be taken up after the report is filed. The operative part of that judgment should be reviewed as soon as it is issued; if an essential point is missing, an application to supplement the terms can be made before the expert begins work, which is far easier than seeking the same thing after the report has been filed.

III. The Conduct of the Expertise: Meetings, the Medical File, and the Report and Its Weight

1. Notice to the parties and expert meetings

The expert must notify the parties of the date and place of the first meeting, known in practice as the "expert session". Each party may attend in person or through counsel, produce documents and memoranda, present observations and defences to the expert, and ask that they be recorded in the minutes. Attendance is not a formality: an expert who hears a party explain the events and receives organised, annotated documents forms a far more complete picture than one who relies on the court file alone.

If a party fails to attend despite notice, the expert may proceed in that party's absence, and the party cannot later complain that the report ignored a defence never put forward. In practice, absence from expert meetings is among the most damaging mistakes a party can make, particularly in medical cases, where the expert needs to understand the symptoms and sequence of events as the patient experienced them.

2. The medical file: the core of the whole exercise

The medical file is the single most important document in any medical expertise. It typically includes the admission and discharge records, diagnostic notes, investigations, imaging and laboratory results, the operative report and anaesthesia notes, nursing and daily progress notes, consent forms, prescriptions, and discharge and follow-up reports. Healthcare facilities are under legal duties to maintain these records, and the patient is entitled to a copy of them or to a detailed medical report on his condition.

If the facility refuses to hand over the file or produces it incomplete, the correct course is to ask the court or the expert to order its production and to insist on that in the expert's minutes and in the pleadings. It is settled that a party's unjustified refusal to produce a document in its possession may be taken as a presumption against it, which makes a refusal to produce the medical file a burden on the facility rather than the patient. Where the file has been lost, is found to be incomplete, or shows entries added after the event, the expert should record that fact in his report, because it bears directly on the court's assessment.

3. Clinical examination and recourse to a specialist

The expert's work may be confined to the documents, or may require a clinical examination of the patient, fresh investigations, or review of recent imaging, particularly when assessing residual disability. Where necessary the expert may seek the opinion of a specialist physician on a specific point, recording that in the report. The patient should comply with requests for examination, since an examination frustrated by the patient may affect the assessment of damage.

4. The structure of the report

The expert files his report with the court registry within the time allowed and the parties are notified. The report usually contains a statement of the terms of reference and the steps taken, the minutes of meetings and the parties' statements, a list of documents reviewed, a description of the medical condition and the course of treatment, the technical opinion on each point in the terms of reference, and the final conclusion. A report that sets out its facts in detail and ties each conclusion to its source in the medical file and in accepted practice will withstand objection; one that leaps to a conclusion without reasoning is the most likely to be sent back.

5. The weight of the report: advisory, not binding

The settled rule is that the expert's report is one element of evidence subject to the trial court's assessment, and that the court is "the highest expert" in the case. It may adopt the report in whole or in part, set it aside if it is not satisfied by it even absent any objection, prefer one expert's report over another's, and decide the case as it sees fit provided there is support in the record. That power is not unlimited, however: where the question is purely technical, the court may not substitute a personal view contrary to the expert's without some technical basis in the record. In other words, the court may reject the report, but it may not step into the physician's shoes on matters only a physician can judge.

IV. Settled Principles of the Kuwait Court of Cassation

The Kuwait Court of Cassation has settled a number of principles on expert evidence that, in practice, determine the fate of a medical report in litigation. The most important are:

• Assessment of the expert's work lies within the trial court's discretion. It may adopt the report once satisfied by it, and is not then bound to respond separately to the objections raised against it, since its adoption of the report implies that it found nothing in those objections warranting a reply.
• The expert does not decide the case. His task is confined to opining on technical questions. Characterising the facts, finding fault in its legal sense, and assessing compensation are the judge's functions; the judge is guided by the report but not bound by it.
• Appointing a further expert is a discretion, not a duty. The court is not obliged to grant an application to return the task to the expert or to appoint a new one where the report on file and the record suffice to form its view, and refusal in that case is no breach of the right of defence.
• Medical fault is measured against the ordinary practitioner of the same level. The physician is not liable for every unsuccessful outcome, but for departure from the accepted medical conduct of a practitioner in his circumstances, and in assessing that departure the court relies on technical expertise.
• A substantial defence that could change the outcome must be addressed. Where a party raises an objection grounded in new medical documents or in fundamental deficiencies in the report, and it is capable of altering the result, the court cannot simply pass over it without examination.
• Reports of administrative medical committees form part of the record. The court may rely on them as a presumption or as evidence among the elements it draws from the case, without being bound by them.

Methodological note

We have deliberately stated these principles in general terms without citing specific appeal numbers or judgment dates, because citing a particular decision requires reviewing its full text and the facts in which it was rendered. Case law evolves, and a single judgment may carry circumstances that make generalisation inaccurate. When preparing a defence memorandum or an objection to an expert report in an actual case, we rely on specific judgments verified from their official sources.

V. Challenging the Report, Expert Fees, and Time

1. The procedural path of an objection, step by step

• Review the report as soon as it is filed. The parties are notified of filing, are entitled to a copy, and a hearing is fixed to take up the case in light of the report. The interval between filing and the hearing is when the objection must be prepared.
• The objection memorandum. It is submitted at the hearing or within the time the court allows, and identifies the report's deficiencies specifically: omission of a material document, departure from accepted medical practice, contradiction between the report's facts and its conclusion, the expert exceeding or failing to complete the terms of reference, reliance on information obtained from non-parties without confrontation, or the expert's lack of the relevant speciality.
• Support the objection with medical documents. An objection limited to generalities such as "the report is unsound" carries no practical weight. An objection supported by a consultant's medical opinion from a specialist, by recognised medical references, or by documents from the medical file the expert overlooked, is what moves the court to reconsider.
• Applications accompanying the objection. These may be to return the task to the same expert to complete what was omitted or answer the objections, to appoint a new expert with fresh terms, to constitute a three-member panel of experts, or to summon the expert to the hearing for oral questioning. They are best presented in order of preference, as primary and alternative applications.
• Private consultant opinions. A party may file a medical report from a physician of its own choosing. That report does not rise to the level of court expertise because it was not prepared in the presence of the other side, but it is a legitimate means of supporting an objection and showing the court where the technical disagreement lies, and it is often the reason a three-member panel is granted.
• After the objection is rejected. If the court adopts the report and gives judgment, the objections may be renewed before the Court of Appeal, which has full jurisdiction over the merits and may appoint a new expert. The Court of Cassation does not reassess the evidence; it reviews the soundness of the reasoning and whether substantial defences were addressed.

2. Documents required in practice

• The complete medical file from every facility where the patient was treated, arranged chronologically.
• Subsequent medical reports establishing the current condition and residual harm.
• Consent forms for the treatment or operation and any information given to the patient.
• The decision or report of the Ministry of Health technical committee or medical liability committee, if a complaint was lodged.
• Invoices, receipts and evidence of treatment expenses and financial losses.
• A consultant's medical opinion from a specialist explaining the patient's position technically (useful when objecting).
• A written timeline of events with dates and times, for submission to the expert.

3. Expert fees: who deposits them and who ultimately bears them

When the court appoints an expert, its interlocutory judgment fixes an amount to be deposited on account of the expert's fees and expenses, names the party responsible for the deposit, and sets the deadline. The deposit is usually required from the party who applied for the expertise, or from the claimant as the party with the interest in proving the case; it may be apportioned among the parties where the expertise serves all of them or was ordered by the court of its own motion. After the report is filed the court may authorise release of the deposit to the expert, who may request an additional sum where the work exceeded what was estimated.

Paying the deposit does not mean bearing the fees finally. They form part of the costs of the action, and the rule is that costs are borne by the losing party. If the patient's claims are upheld, the physician or hospital is ordered to pay costs including the expert's fees; if the claim is dismissed, the patient bears them; if it succeeds in part, they may be apportioned. Where the party responsible fails to deposit within the time allowed without excuse, it may forfeit its right to rely on the expertise and the court will decide on the documents before it, which in practice may mean losing the case for want of proof.

4. Time limits and delay to the proceedings

The court sets the expert a deadline for filing the report, and the expert may apply for an extension where the work requires it. This happens frequently in medical expertise because of the volume of documents, the need to examine the patient, or recourse to a specialist. In practice the medical expert stage usually takes several months, and longer if the task is returned or a three-member panel is appointed. Such delay is not a procedural defect as long as it is justified.

A diligent party can reduce the delay by simple steps: paying the deposit as soon as the interlocutory judgment is issued, following up with the Experts Department to learn which expert has been assigned and the date of the first meeting, submitting the complete and organised medical file at the first meeting, and asking at that same meeting that the healthcare facility be ordered to produce the records in its possession rather than waiting.

VI. Practical Analysis and Hypothetical Scenarios

Scenario One: A report by an expert outside the speciality

Hypothetical facts: A patient underwent spinal surgery that left permanent weakness in one limb. She sued for compensation, and the court referred the matter to the Experts Department, where a general medical expert prepared a report concluding that "what occurred is among the recognised complications". The patient filed an opinion from a consultant neurosurgeon showing that the pre-operative imaging called for a different surgical approach.

Legal analysis: The objection here is serious because it rests on two points: the expert's lack of speciality in a delicate matter, and a contrary technical opinion supported by a document from the medical file itself. The appropriate application is to return the task to a three-member panel including a consultant neurosurgeon, as the primary request, or to appoint another specialist expert in the alternative. The court is not obliged to grant it, but passing over a substantial defence of this gravity without a reply exposes the judgment to criticism at the higher levels of appeal.

Scenario Two: A hospital refusing to produce the medical file

Hypothetical facts: A patient died hours after admission to the emergency department. The heirs asked the hospital for the medical file and were handed a one-page summary. At the expert meeting, the hospital maintained that the records were "unavailable".

Legal analysis: The expert should record in the minutes that the file was requested and that the hospital declined to produce it, and counsel for the heirs should ask the court to order production of the complete records, including nursing notes and medication timings. If the refusal persists, the court may draw a presumption against the hospital, because the healthcare facility is the party legally responsible for keeping the record, and its inability to produce it cannot be laid at the door of a patient who never had it. In such a case the expertise may well conclude that the absence of documentation is itself a deficiency in care.

Scenario Three: A technical committee finding of no fault, followed by a civil claim

Hypothetical facts: A patient lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Health, and the technical committee found no professional fault warranting disciplinary action. He then brought a civil claim for compensation, and the physician argued that the matter had been settled by the committee's decision.

Legal analysis: That argument does not defeat the claim. The administrative committee's decision does not have the force of res judicata before the civil court, and the committee's standard for disciplinary accountability may differ from the standard of civil liability. But the report will be in the record and will be read by the judge and the expert, so the patient must show why independent court expertise is justified and identify the deficiencies in the committee's report rather than simply ignore it. Conversely, a committee report that does find fault is a strong starting point, but it does not replace court expertise on damage and causation.

VII. Comparative Table: The Ministry of Health Technical Committee versus the Court-Appointed Expert

Confusion between the two routes is common, because both are "a medical opinion on a complaint". In truth they differ in origin, procedure and effect. The Ministry of Health route begins with an administrative complaint by the patient or his family, referred to a specialist technical committee that studies the file and hears the parties according to its rules, and ends in an opinion on whether there was professional fault, which may lead to a disciplinary penalty or referral to the Public Prosecution if the committee considers the facts to constitute an offence. The court expertise route begins with an interlocutory judgment in pending litigation, is conducted in the presence of the parties, and ends in a report filed in the case for the court to assess.

• Issuing body: Technical committee: an administrative committee formed by the Ministry of Health from specialist physicians. Court expert: an expert appointed by the court from the Experts Department or of the court's choosing.
• Starting point: Technical committee: an administrative complaint by the patient, with no need for a lawsuit. Court expert: an interlocutory judgment in pending civil or criminal proceedings.
• Adversarial safeguards: Technical committee: according to its rules, and the patient may not have access to everything the committee reviewed. Court expert: notice to the parties, their attendance, production of their documents, and recording of their statements in the minutes.
• Question examined: Technical committee: primarily whether professional fault occurred. Court expert: fault, damage, causation, degree of disability and treatment costs, as set out in the terms of reference.
• Direct effect: Technical committee: disciplinary penalty, referral, or closure. Court expert: an element of evidence on which the judgment awarding or refusing compensation is built.
• Value before the court: Technical committee: a document in the record which the court may treat as a presumption. Court expert: court expertise in the legal sense, which likewise does not bind the court.
• Challenge: Technical committee: administrative grievance under its rules, or a challenge to the resulting administrative decision. Court expert: an objection memorandum before the court and an application for the task to be returned, a new expert, or a three-member panel.
• Cost: Technical committee: the complaint is in principle free. Court expert: a deposit that forms part of the costs of the action.
• Relationship between them: Neither replaces the other. The optimal sequence is usually for the committee's report to precede the lawsuit, with court expertise then sought in light of it.

A third route exists alongside these two: forensic medicine in criminal proceedings, where the Public Prosecution or the criminal court appoints a forensic physician to determine the cause of death or injury. We addressed it in Forensic Medicine and Scientific Evidence in Kuwaiti Criminal Proceedings. For the general rules of expert evidence outside medical matters, see Judicial Expertise in Kuwait: Appointment, Discussion and Challenge and Judicial Expertise in Kuwaiti Law: Types, Procedures and Rules.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Must I lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Health before suing for compensation?

It is not a legal precondition for the civil claim, but it is useful in practice: the committee's report is a strong document in the case, the complaint is free, and it may uncover information in the medical file that was not otherwise available. It is usually advisable to lodge the complaint and prepare the lawsuit in parallel so that limitation periods are not missed.

2. Can I choose the medical expert myself?

No. The court appoints the expert, and the Experts Department usually determines which expert takes the task. You may, however, ask that the expert be from a particular speciality, and you may object to an expert on recognised grounds of recusal, such as kinship, interest, or having previously expressed a view on the facts.

3. What if the expert refuses to consider the documents I submitted?

Ask that their submission be recorded in the minutes, and keep a copy of what was submitted with proof of receipt. If the report ignores them, that is a substantial ground of objection justifying an application to return the task.

4. May the physician or hospital attend the expert meetings?

Yes; that is their right as parties to the case. Confrontation before the expert is precisely what distinguishes court expertise from other opinions.

5. Is the court bound by the disability percentage assessed by the expert?

Not absolutely, but it usually relies on it because it is a technical matter. Translating that percentage into a sum of compensation is for the court alone, taking into account the injured party's circumstances, age, income, and the nature of the material and moral harm.

6. How long does medical expertise take?

There is no fixed period; it depends on the size of the file, the availability of documents, the parties' cooperation, and whether an examination or specialist consultation is needed. In practice it usually takes several months, and longer if the task is returned.

7. Who pays the expert's fees if I cannot afford them?

As a rule the deposit is paid by the party the court designates. It is possible to apply for the amount to be reduced or apportioned among the parties depending on the circumstances, and the fees ultimately form part of the costs borne by the losing party. Failure by the responsible party to deposit without excuse may deprive it of the benefit of the expertise.

8. Can expertise be conducted where the patient has died?

Yes. The expertise is carried out on the medical file, the documents and the death report, and the forensic report may be used if a post-mortem was performed. In such cases particular attention should be paid to documenting the sequence of events in the final hours and the medication administered.

9. I filed a report from a private physician; why did the court not adopt it?

Because a private consultant's report is prepared at the request of one party and without confrontation with the other, it does not rise to the level of court expertise. Its real value is in justifying an application for an expert or an objection to his report, not in replacing it.

10. May I object to the report for the first time before the Court of Appeal?

The Court of Appeal has full jurisdiction over the merits, and an objection and an application for a new expert may be made before it. But silence before the court of first instance weakens the position and may be read as acceptance of the report. It is always better to object at the first opportunity.

11. What is the difference between expertise in a civil claim and in a criminal complaint?

In the criminal route the Public Prosecution or the court appoints a forensic physician or a medical committee to determine whether there was gross negligence amounting to an offence, and the standard is stricter. In the civil route the expertise examines fault in its civil sense and assesses damage for the purpose of compensation. A civil claim may result in compensation even if the criminal route ends in closure, because the standards differ.

Conclusion

Medical expert evidence is the procedural heart of a medical negligence claim in Kuwait. Between the interlocutory judgment appointing the expert and the filing of his report, the outcome of the case is largely made: in terms of reference drafted with care or carelessly, in a medical file produced complete or incomplete, in an expert meeting the party attended or missed, and in an objection that is reasoned or a set of generalities that persuade no one.

Litigants should understand that the expert's report, important as it is, is not the end of the road. The court decides what weight to give it, and a party has legitimate means of discussing and challenging it and of seeking the task's return or a three-member panel. Likewise, the Ministry of Health technical committee's report, useful as it is, neither replaces court expertise nor decides the civil claim by itself.

In all cases this article is a general statement of procedural rules and not an assessment of any particular matter. Every medical file has its own details, every set of terms of reference its own proper drafting, and every objection a moment which, once missed, is hard to recover.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this article is provided for legal awareness purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a binding legal opinion, as each case differs according to its own circumstances and facts.

If you are a patient or family member considering a medical negligence claim, if an interlocutory judgment appointing an expert has been issued in your case, if an expert has filed a report you need reviewed and challenged, or if you are a physician or healthcare facility facing such a claim, Yumnaak Law Firm would be glad to review your medical file and draft the terms of reference or the objection memorandum appropriate to your case.

Book an appointment with our firm for specialised legal consultation, or contact us now to discuss your matter in complete confidence.