Singapore High Court Clarifies Dental Supervisors’ Responsibilities

Court Case Highlights Implications of “Cover Me” in Medical Practice

A recent ruling by the Singapore High Court has shed light on the extent of liability for dental supervisors, according to a report published on the ICLG.com website. The case, involving a Division 1 Dentist found guilty of professional misconduct, has brought attention to the responsibilities of supervisors in ensuring proper oversight of conditionally registered dentists.

Background of the Case

The case centers around Dr. Amit Patel, who was initially convicted by the Singapore District Court on five charges of professional misconduct under the Dental Registration Act 1999. The charges stemmed from incidents in December 2016 when Dr. Patel left his junior dentist, Dr. Low Ee Lyn, to practice without supervision.

Dr. Low, hired under conditional registration, was not permitted to practice without oversight from an approved supervisor or a Division 1 Dentist. The misconduct came to light following a routine inspection by the Singapore Dental Council.

New Government Initiative to Support Personal Well-being in Singapore

The “Cover Me” Controversy

A key point of contention in the case was Dr. Patel’s use of the phrase “cover me” in communications with Dr. Low. The High Court rejected Dr. Patel’s claim that he merely intended for Dr. Low to reschedule appointments and address patients’ concerns.

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng of the High Court stated, “The normal understanding of ‘cover’ in the medical practice means ‘see my patient’,” and declared the court was “completely unpersuaded by Dr. Patel’s explanation” of his intended meaning.

High Court’s Ruling

While the High Court upheld the District Court’s finding of professional misconduct, it made significant changes to the penalties imposed. The court withdrew the USD 30,000 fine, agreeing with Dr. Patel that there was insufficient evidence to prove he had profited or intended to profit from the breaches of his supervisory duty.

Justice Hoo wrote, “Neither the Council nor the District Court was able to point to any evidence that Dr Patel profited from or intended to profit from the breaches of his supervisory duty.”

The court also reduced Dr. Patel’s suspension from 15 months to 12 months.

Dental Costs in Singapore Rising, Employee Benefits Lag Behind

Implications for Dental Supervision

This case highlights the importance of clear communication and diligent oversight in dental supervision. The High Court’s ruling emphasizes that supervisors must take active steps to ensure proper supervision is in place, especially when they are unable to provide direct oversight themselves.

The case serves as a reminder to all medical professionals of the weight carried by commonly used phrases like “cover me” and the potential consequences of miscommunication in medical settings.

As the dental profession continues to evolve, this ruling may have far-reaching implications for how supervisory responsibilities are understood and implemented in Singapore and potentially beyond.