Emergency Refused or Transferred Before Stabilisation in Kuwait: Is the Private Hospital Liable and How Can the Patient Claim?

Introduction: When the Emergency Door Stays Shut

A patient arrives at the emergency department of a private hospital or a large clinic close to home at the worst possible moment: crushing chest pain, bleeding after a road accident, a child struggling to breathe, a pregnant woman with sudden complications. At the very moment that should belong entirely to treatment, the family hears something else. "We don't accept your insurance." "Please pay a deposit first." "This case needs a government hospital, take him there." Sometimes the patient is actually moved, by private car or ambulance, before his vital signs have settled, and he deteriorates on the road or loses minutes that turn out to matter.

This article is deliberately narrow. It does not deal with errors made during treatment, with a hospital holding a patient after treatment until the bill is settled, or with consent to treat a minor; each of those has its own article on our blog. Our subject here is the refusal to receive or resuscitate an emergency patient, and the transfer of a patient before he is stable. It is an angle families often overlook, because many assume that a private hospital is free to accept or turn away whomever it likes, and that the relationship is purely commercial: it starts with payment and ends with payment.

The legal position is more demanding than that. A healthcare facility, private or public, operates under a state licence that carries professional duties going beyond buying and selling. The first of those duties is not to leave a human being in immediate danger without the minimum emergency care that protects life or prevents serious worsening. Below we explain the basis for holding the facility and the doctor accountable under the Kuwaiti Civil Code (Law 67/1980) and the Penal Code (Law 16/1960), the idea of loss of chance, how the injured party proves what happened, and the routes available, from an administrative complaint to the Ministry of Health to a civil claim for compensation.

The Short Answer

Yes, a private or public healthcare facility can be held liable if it refuses the basic emergency care a genuine emergency requires, makes that care conditional on prepayment or insurance approval, or transfers the patient elsewhere before his condition is stable enough for the move to be safe, provided that harm resulted and a causal link between that conduct and the harm is proved.

• Civil basis: the rules on liability for wrongful acts in the Civil Code (Law 67/1980), the liability of a principal for the acts of its staff, and in some cases contractual liability where a contract with the facility already exists.
• Possible criminal basis: where refusal or premature transfer leads to death or injury, criminal liability for unintentional harm may be examined under the Penal Code (Law 16/1960). The precise characterisation of the facts is for the investigating authorities and the court.
• Loss of chance: even if it is not certain that prompt care would have saved the patient, the loss of a real and serious chance of survival or recovery may itself be compensable harm.
• Evidence: time of arrival, reception and triage records, the facility's CCTV, witnesses, messages, and the report of the technical committee or the court-appointed medical expert.
• Practical route: a complaint to the Ministry of Health as the regulator of healthcare facilities, a criminal report where there is death or serious injury, and a civil action for compensation.

None of this means every transfer is wrongful. Transfer can be exactly the right medical decision when a facility lacks the necessary capability, provided the patient is first stabilised as far as possible, moved by suitable transport, and handed over in coordination with the receiving facility.

The Legal Framework: Which Rules Govern Emergency Care in Kuwait?

There is no single provision that contains the whole answer. The rules are spread across several layers of legislation and regulation, and they need to be read together.

1. Legislation on the practice of medicine and healthcare facilities

The law regulating the practice of medicine and allied professions, patients' rights and healthcare facilities, together with the ministerial decisions issued under it, sets out the duties of doctors and facilities towards patients. As a general matter these instruments rest on the principle that a doctor must not refuse to assist a patient in an emergency that threatens life or safety when he is able to do so, and that a licensed facility must provide at least a minimum level of emergency care consistent with its classification and type of licence. The exact scope of these duties must be checked against the texts in force on the date of the incident and their implementing decisions; that verification is part of a lawyer's work on each file.

2. The Civil Code (Law 67/1980)

This is the general framework for compensation. It provides that anyone whose fault causes harm to another must compensate that harm, and it makes a principal liable for harm caused by its subordinate's wrongful act committed while performing his duties or by reason of them. On that basis a healthcare facility answers for the faults of its doctors, nurses and reception staff, and the claimant does not have to identify precisely which employee decided to turn the patient away, provided it is shown that the refusal came from the facility in the course of its business. The Civil Code also governs contractual liability where a contractual relationship already exists, for instance where the patient is registered with the facility or enrolled in one of its care programmes.

3. The Penal Code (Law 16/1960) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Law 17/1960)

The Penal Code punishes death and injury caused by negligence, recklessness, inattention or failure to observe regulations. The difficult question is whether a refusal to provide care, an omission rather than an act, can satisfy that description. The answer depends on the facts of each case: on whether the person concerned was under a specific legal or professional duty to intervene, and on whether a causal link between the omission and the outcome can be established. Reports, investigation and referral to court are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code (Law 17/1960).

4. The Insurance Regulation Law (Law 125/2019)

Where the stated reason for refusal is "we don't accept this insurance" or "we are waiting for the insurer's approval", the relationship between the insured person and the insurer, and the insurer's obligations, are governed by the Insurance Regulation Law (Law 125/2019) and by the policy itself. The key point is that a dispute between the hospital and an insurer over pre-authorisation does not, by itself, cancel the duty to provide basic emergency care to the patient. That duty concerns a human life, not the settlement of an account.

5. Evidence and procedure

Proof in the civil action is governed by the Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters (Law 39/1980), and the filing of the case, its hearing and the appointment of experts are governed by the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code (Law 38/1980) and the rules regulating expert work. We explain how medical experts are appointed and how their reports can be challenged in Medical Expert Evidence Before the Kuwaiti Courts.

For a broader overview of medical liability in Kuwait, see Medical Liability in Kuwaiti Law: Medical Errors and Compensation and The Legal Framework for Holding Healthcare Providers Accountable in Kuwait.

The Substantive Rules: When Is a Refusal or Transfer a Fault?

What counts as an emergency?

Not every visit to an emergency department is an emergency in the legal sense. In general medical and legal usage, an emergency is a condition in which the patient faces a risk to life, to a limb or organ, or to a vital function, or a serious deterioration in health, unless he receives urgent medical intervention. Common examples are heart attacks and strokes, severe bleeding, serious breathing difficulty, loss of consciousness, major injuries after accidents, certain complications of pregnancy and childbirth, seizures and severe allergic reactions. A routine follow-up or a mild cold does not trigger the same immediate duty, although the facility must still treat the patient properly and explain the alternatives.

The test is largely objective. Did the patient's condition, as it presented on arrival and as an ordinarily careful doctor in the same circumstances would have understood it, call for urgent intervention? What a non-medical receptionist happened to think is not the test. That is why the absence of any medical triage, leaving the decision to an administrative employee, can itself point to organisational negligence.

The content of the duty: a minimum, not full treatment

A small clinic is not expected to perform open-heart surgery, and a polyclinic is not expected to have an intensive care unit. The duty is measured against the facility's capability and the classification of its licence. The minimum normally expected includes:

• an initial examination and medical triage to determine how serious the case is;
• the basic emergency measures possible with the available equipment and staff: securing the airway, controlling bleeding, cardiopulmonary resuscitation where needed, and administering available emergency medication;
• stabilising the patient as far as resources allow before any move;
• where full treatment is not possible: arranging a facility able to receive the patient, calling a suitable ambulance or providing equipped transport, and sending a short medical report of what was done.

The breach lies in refusing this minimum, not in being unable to provide what was never within the facility's means.

Demanding prepayment or insurance before treatment

This is the most common form of dispute. A private hospital is a commercial enterprise and is in principle entitled to be paid for its services and to require payment guarantees for scheduled, non-urgent care. The problem begins when basic emergency care for a genuine emergency is made conditional on payment or insurance approval and the patient is left waiting while his condition worsens. The approach reflected in medical ethics and in health regulation generally is that emergency care comes before money, and that the facility may then claim its fees through lawful means.

This distinction has practical consequences. A facility that examined the patient, gave first-line treatment and stabilised him, and only then asked for payment before continuing non-urgent treatment, or offered a safe transfer, stands in a very different position from one that would not even examine the patient before seeing an insurance card. The separate question of a hospital refusing to release a patient after treatment until the bill is paid is covered in Holding a Patient or a Body Until the Bill Is Paid.

Transfer to a government hospital before stabilisation

Transfer is in itself a legitimate medical decision, and it may be required when a facility cannot provide the treatment needed. It becomes a fault when:

• it happens before the patient has been stabilised as far as possible, so that he is moved in a condition that cannot tolerate the move;
• its real motive is financial or administrative (no insurance, no beds for paying patients) rather than medical;
• the means of transport is unsuitable, for example telling the family to drive a patient who needs an equipped ambulance;
• there is no coordination with the receiving facility and no medical report of what was done, so the new team has to start from nothing;
• the family is misled into thinking the case is minor or that there is "no rush".

Whether a patient was "stable enough" to move is a purely technical question. It is answered by medical expertise; a judge cannot decide it without a technical opinion.

Is a government hospital treated differently?

As a matter of professional ethics, the duty to treat emergencies applies to every facility. The differences lie in procedure and in who is answerable. For a government hospital, the claim is directed at the administrative body to which it belongs, as the principal, and questions of jurisdiction and pre-action procedure may arise. For a private hospital, the claim is directed at the owning or licensed company, and the doctor may also be joined. A premature transfer from one government hospital to another is judged by the same standard of fault as a transfer from a private to a public one.

The elements of civil liability: fault, harm and causation

Fault. Here, fault is the refusal of required emergency care, the transfer before stabilisation, or an unjustified delay. A doctor's and a facility's obligation is, as a rule, an obligation of means rather than of result: they must exercise the care that a vigilant doctor of average standing in the same field would exercise in the same circumstances, in line with established medical principles. A complete refusal to provide emergency care is hard to describe as exercising any care at all.

Harm. Harm may be material (extra treatment costs because of deterioration, lost income, permanent disability) or moral (pain, suffering and grief). It may be harm passed on to the heirs, or personal harm suffered by the relatives of a deceased patient.

Causation. This is usually the hardest element to prove in these cases. The hospital will argue that the patient would have died or suffered the same harm anyway because of his illness. That is where loss of chance becomes important.

Loss of chance: when no one can say the care would have saved the patient

It is often scientifically impossible to say with certainty that immediate care would have saved the patient. It is often possible, however, to say that it would have given him a real and serious chance of survival or of reduced harm. The loss-of-chance doctrine treats the loss of that chance as harm that has actually occurred, even though the final outcome was uncertain. Compensation is not awarded for the whole death or disability; it is awarded for the value of the lost chance, which the judge assesses according to how serious and how probable the chance was, as explained by the medical expert.

The chance must normally be real and serious, not a faint hope or remote possibility, and its loss must be attributable to the facility's fault. We discuss the same concept in the context of diagnosis in Wrong or Delayed Diagnosis and the Loss of a Chance of Treatment; the same reasoning applies to a delayed or refused emergency response.

Possible criminal liability

If the incident ends in death or serious injury, the family may consider a criminal report. Criminal liability is personal: it attaches to the individual who committed or contributed to the fault, such as the doctor on duty or the manager who issued instructions to refuse. The key legal question is whether the provisions on causing death or injury by negligence apply to an omission. That depends on whether the individual was under a specific legal duty to act, and on whether his intervention would have prevented or reduced the outcome. Criminal law scholarship contains a well-known debate on how far an omission can be equated with a positive act in offences of negligence; we do not resolve it here, as the characterisation of the facts belongs to the investigating authorities and then to the court.

The injured party should also know that criminal and civil proceedings are distinct routes. In principle he may bring a civil claim before the criminal court or go to the civil court, and the choice has procedural consequences that should be assessed with a lawyer before starting.

Defences the facility is likely to raise

• that the case was not an emergency on arrival according to triage;
• that the facility lacked the necessary capability and transfer was the correct medical decision;
• that first-line care was in fact given and the patient was stable when moved;
• that the family refused to stay, insisted on the move, or signed a discharge against medical advice;
• that there is no causation, because the outcome would have occurred anyway;
• that the patient or his family delayed coming or withheld information.

Each of these defences has its answer in evidence, which is why early collection of proof decides most of these cases.

Principles from the Court of Cassation

The following general principles from the Court of Cassation's case law on medical liability bear directly on refusals and premature transfers:

• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that a doctor's obligation is, as a rule, an obligation of means, and that the required standard is the care exercised by a vigilant doctor of average knowledge and skill in the same circumstances, in keeping with professional custom and established medical principles.
• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that a doctor is liable for any shortcoming in his professional conduct that would not be committed by a vigilant doctor of his professional level placed in the same external circumstances.
• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that establishing the fault giving rise to liability, and the causal link between that fault and the harm, are questions of fact for the trial court, provided its reasoning is sound and grounded in the file.
• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that the trial court may assess an expert's work and adopt his report in whole or in part or set it aside, provided it gives reasons, and that it is not obliged to appoint another expert where the file contains enough to form its view.
• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that a principal is liable for harm caused by its subordinate's wrongful act committed while performing his duties or by reason of them, and that this liability exists for the benefit of the injured party.
• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that loss of chance can be actual harm deserving compensation where the chance was real and serious, even though the gain or the avoided loss was itself only probable.
• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that, once the grounds for compensation exist and no statute imposes specific criteria, assessing the amount is for the trial court, provided it identifies the elements of harm it is compensating.

Methodological note: these principles are stated in general terms reflecting the settled approach as presented in published judgments and commentary. We have deliberately not cited case numbers or dates. Applying any principle to a particular incident depends on its facts and evidence, the result may change with the details, and the final word belongs to the trial court in the light of the expert report and the documents.

Practical Steps: What Should the Patient or Family Do?

During the incident

1. The patient's life comes first. Do not get drawn into a long argument at the cost of time. If the patient is refused, call the public ambulance service immediately or go to the nearest emergency department able to receive him. Documentation comes after securing treatment, or alongside it if another companion can handle it.
2. Ask clearly for an initial examination. Say plainly that this is an emergency and ask for the patient to be seen by a doctor, not just by reception. Ask for the name of the doctor on duty.
3. Record the times. Time of arrival, first contact with reception, the refusal or payment demand, departure or transfer, and arrival at the second facility. Your phone timestamps photos, messages and calls automatically.
4. Ask for the refusal in writing. Request a document stating why the patient was not admitted or why he is being transferred. Many facilities refuse to write anything, and that refusal is itself a fact that witnesses can prove.
5. Keep every document. Any receipt if you paid under pressure, any form you signed, the registration card and the file number.
6. Do not sign "discharge at my own responsibility" without reading it. If it is the facility that refuses to keep the patient, do not sign a paper saying you asked to leave. If you have to sign, add in your own handwriting a line stating what actually happened.
7. Identify witnesses. Names and contact details of other companions or patients who were present.

Immediately afterwards

1. Request a copy of the medical file from the first facility (if a file was opened) and from the second. If the request is refused, see When a Hospital Refuses to Hand Over the Medical File.
2. Request a report from the second facility describing the patient's condition on arrival: vital signs, severity, and whether the delay affected his condition. This report is often the strongest evidence in the case.
3. Ask for CCTV footage to be preserved. Recordings are not kept indefinitely and may be overwritten automatically. Send the facility a written request to preserve them and mention them in your complaint and any criminal report so the investigator or the court can call for them. Acting early matters.
4. Write a detailed account while your memory is fresh, with times, names and the words used.
5. Keep call logs and messages with the facility and the insurer.

Administrative complaint to the Ministry of Health

The Ministry of Health licenses and supervises private healthcare facilities and may investigate complaints and take regulatory and disciplinary measures under the legislation in force. A complaint is useful for several reasons: it records the incident officially and early, and it may lead to referral to the competent technical committee for medical complaints, whose report can later be important evidence in court. An administrative complaint does not award compensation, however; compensation is for the courts.

The complaint is best made in writing, in chronological order, with whatever documents are available attached, and the complainant should keep proof of filing and the reference number.

Criminal report

Where the incident resulted in death or serious injury, the family may consider reporting it to the competent investigating authority. The investigators will then gather evidence, call for files and recordings, and may seek the opinion of the medical technical body. A pending criminal investigation can affect the timing and course of a civil claim, which is something your lawyer will assess.

Civil claim for compensation

The claim is brought against the facility (and the doctor where appropriate) before the competent court, usually with a request for a medical expert to be appointed or with reliance on the technical committee's report. It seeks compensation for material and moral harm and, where relevant, for loss of chance. Claims are subject to limitation and forfeiture periods set by law, so do not delay in consulting a lawyer.

Documents worth collecting

• the patient's civil ID and documents proving the claimants' standing (a certificate of inheritance if the patient died);
• any document issued by the first facility: registration card, receipt, form, message;
• the medical file and reports from the second facility, especially those describing the condition on arrival;
• the ambulance report if an ambulance was used;
• the death certificate and any cause-of-death report;
• screenshots of call logs, messages and location history with timestamps;
• the insurance policy and correspondence with the insurer;
• witness names and contact details;
• a copy of the Ministry of Health complaint and any response;
• evidence of material loss: later treatment invoices and proof of lost income.

Illustrative Scenarios

Scenario one: a heart attack and an insurance card

A man in his fifties arrives at the emergency department of a nearby private hospital with severe chest pain and sweating. Reception asks for his insurance card, finds that his insurer has no contract with the hospital, and tells the family to pay a deposit or go to a government hospital. The family drive him there themselves, where he is found to have had a heart attack and the delay has caused wider damage to the heart muscle.

Analysis: the symptoms point clearly to an emergency. The first question is whether a doctor saw him at all. If not, the facility left the assessment of an emergency to an administrative employee and made basic care conditional on money. The second question is whether the delay increased the harm. The expert will assess what could have been avoided with basic emergency care (an ECG, standard emergency medication, coordination with a specialist centre). Even if the expert concludes that some damage would have occurred anyway, the family may still claim for the lost chance of reducing it.

Scenario two: transferring a pregnant woman who is bleeding

A pregnant woman arrives at a private hospital bleeding. The doctor examines her and starts fluids, then decides to transfer her to a government hospital because the private hospital has no neonatal intensive care for premature babies. An ambulance is called, a written report is sent, and the receiving hospital is contacted. She is treated, but the baby is born with complications.

Analysis: the picture is quite different. The facility gave first-line care, stabilised her within its means, had a clear medical reason to transfer, and moved her by suitable transport with coordination. That conduct is in principle consistent with the professional standard, and liability does not arise simply because the outcome was not what the family hoped for, unless the expert finds that she was not stable enough to move and that the hospital could and should have carried out an urgent intervention first.

Scenario three: an injured child and a deposit demand

A child is hurt in a bicycle accident and taken to a large private clinic with an emergency unit. The doctor gives first aid and stops the visible bleeding, then the administration asks for a deposit before a CT scan. The father cannot pay, is told to take the child to a government hospital, and drives him there; internal bleeding is later discovered.

Analysis: some first-line care was given, but was the child really stable once the visible bleeding stopped? And was a private car appropriate for a child injured in an accident with possible internal injuries? Liability will turn on the expert's view of stability and of the suitability of the transport, and on whether the real motive for the transfer was financial. Because the patient is a minor, questions of consent and guardianship also arise; see Treating a Minor in an Emergency Without a Guardian's Consent.

These scenarios are hypothetical and for illustration only. They do not describe real cases, and the result in any actual incident depends on its evidence and the expert report.

Comparison: Acceptable Conduct Versus Conduct That Raises Liability

• Triage: acceptable: a qualified doctor or nurse assesses severity. Raises liability: reception turns the patient away with no medical assessment.
• Money: acceptable: emergency care first, then payment or insurance for later, non-urgent treatment. Raises liability: examination and first-line care made conditional on payment or an insurance card.
• Reason for transfer: acceptable: lack of capability or a specialty not available. Raises liability: no insurance or inability to pay.
• Timing of transfer: acceptable: after stabilisation as far as possible. Raises liability: while the patient cannot tolerate the move.
• Transport: acceptable: an equipped ambulance suited to the case. Raises liability: telling the family to drive a critical patient.
• Coordination: acceptable: prior contact with the receiving facility and a written report sent along. Raises liability: sending the patient out with no coordination or report.
• Records: acceptable: what was done and why the patient was transferred are noted in the file. Raises liability: no file opened, or refusal to give any document.
• Disclosure: acceptable: explaining how serious the condition is and why the move is needed. Raises liability: downplaying the condition to justify sending the patient away.
• Discharge against advice: acceptable: the family refused to stay after the risks were explained. Raises liability: the family were pushed into signing a paper that does not reflect what happened.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a private hospital in Kuwait refuse an emergency patient because he has no insurance?

The general professional and regulatory approach is that genuine emergency care comes before money: the facility should at least examine, provide the necessary first-line care and stabilise the patient within its means, and then deal with payment or a safe transfer. For non-urgent services, a private hospital may require payment or insurance.

Is transfer to a government hospital always wrongful?

No. Transfer may be the correct medical decision when the necessary capability is not available. The fault lies in transferring before stabilisation, for financial rather than medical reasons, by unsuitable transport, or without coordinating with the receiving facility.

Who decides whether the case was an "emergency" or "stable"?

It is a technical question, ultimately answered by medical expertise, whether the competent technical committee or an expert appointed by the court, on the basis of the medical records and the patient's condition on arrival at both facilities. The court may adopt the technical opinion or depart from it with reasons.

What if no file was ever opened at the first hospital?

That does not prevent proof. Attendance can be shown through CCTV, entry and parking records, witnesses, timestamped calls, messages and location history, and the second facility's report on arrival time and condition. Failing to open a file for an emergency may itself point to negligence.

Can I claim if the patient would have died anyway?

Possibly, on the basis of loss of chance, if the expert finds that prompt care would have given the patient a real and serious chance of survival or reduced harm. Compensation then covers the value of the lost chance rather than the death as a whole, and the judge assesses it.

Should I sue the doctor or the hospital?

In principle the facility can be sued as the principal answerable for its staff, and the doctor or employee who committed the fault can also be joined. Suing the facility is usually more useful in terms of solvency and enforcement. Choosing the defendants precisely is a matter for your lawyer in the light of the facts.

What is the point of a Ministry of Health complaint if it does not award compensation?

It records the incident officially and early, may trigger regulatory oversight of the facility, and may produce a technical committee report that is valuable evidence in the civil claim. It complements a lawsuit rather than replacing it.

I paid a sum under pressure so they would admit the patient. Can I get it back?

Payment for services actually provided is in principle owed to the facility. If the payment demand delayed emergency care and caused harm, that forms part of the compensation claim. If money was paid and no service was provided, its return can be claimed. Keep the receipt in every case.

I signed a "discharge at my own responsibility" form under pressure. Have I lost my rights?

Not necessarily. The form is evidence in the facility's favour, but it can be rebutted. If the family shows through witnesses, CCTV or messages that it was the facility that refused to keep the patient or pushed them to leave, the form may lose its weight. It is always better to write the truth on the form itself before signing.

Do the same rules apply to government hospitals?

The duty to provide emergency care applies to public facilities too, and an unsafe transfer between government hospitals is judged by the same standard of fault. The claim, however, is directed at the responsible administrative body, and procedural questions of jurisdiction may arise that should be reviewed with a lawyer.

How do I stop the CCTV footage from being deleted?

Send the facility a written request to preserve it and keep proof of sending. Mention the cameras and the relevant times in the Ministry complaint and in any criminal report so that the investigator or the court can call for them. Speed is decisive, because recording systems are often overwritten automatically.

Does the clinic have to be large, or have an emergency unit, to be liable?

The scope of the duty depends on the facility's capability and licence classification. A small clinic is not expected to provide what it does not have, but it is expected at least not to leave an emergency without the care it can give and without calling an ambulance or giving proper direction. Falling below that minimum may give rise to liability.

Does it make a difference if the insurer refused pre-authorisation?

A dispute between the facility and the insurer does not remove the duty to provide basic emergency care to the patient. The insurer's own liability to the insured is governed by the policy and the Insurance Regulation Law, and may be pursued separately or alongside, depending on the facts.

Conclusion

Refusing emergency care, or getting rid of an emergency patient through a hasty transfer, is not a matter of a private hospital's "internal policy". It may be a professional fault giving rise to civil liability and, in serious cases, to criminal liability as well. The principle running through this whole area is simple: treat first, settle the bill later. A facility that examines, gives first-line care, stabilises and then transfers safely and in coordination has generally done its duty, even if the outcome is not what the family hoped for. A facility that turns the patient away at the door because he does not carry the right card stands in a very different position.

These cases are usually won or lost on the evidence gathered in the first hours and days: the times, the CCTV, the second facility's report and the testimony of those present. After saving the patient, the most important advice to a family is to document early and ask for evidence to be preserved before it disappears. Medical expertise then resolves the technical questions: was it an emergency, was the patient stable when moved, and did the delay cause the harm or the loss of a serious chance?

In every case, assessing the strength of a claim and choosing the right route, whether an administrative complaint, a criminal report, a civil action or a combination, calls for a careful review of the facts and documents by a lawyer experienced in medical liability. For further reading on other risks for which healthcare facilities may be answerable, see Hospital-Acquired Infections in Kuwait: Is the Facility Liable?

Legal Notice and Contact

This article is general legal information and is not legal advice on any specific case. How it applies to your situation depends on the facts, the documents and the legislation in force at the time, and claims are subject to time limits set by law that should not be missed.

If you or a family member were refused emergency care or transferred before being stabilised, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm will be glad to review your file and assess your legal position. You can contact us or book an appointment at our office.