WILLEMSTAD – Patients in Curaçao cannot appeal for a harsher disciplinary sanction against a doctor if a measure has already been imposed, according to a ruling by the Joint Court of Justice in a case involving surgeon Michel Berry.
The case centers on a woman who lost a kidney following surgery and held Berry responsible. The Medical Disciplinary Board previously found that the surgeon had fallen short in providing adequate information after a scan, leading to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Berry was issued a formal warning.
The patient appealed the decision, seeking a heavier sanction such as suspension or a professional ban. She also argued that the complaint had not been handled fairly or impartially. However, the Court declared her appeal inadmissible, stating that the law does not allow complainants to file an appeal when a disciplinary measure has already been imposed.
The Court also rejected arguments based on the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Judges ruled that this right does not directly apply in such disciplinary proceedings, as they do not concern the determination of the complainant’s civil rights or obligations.
The ruling reinforces the limited legal position of patients within the medical disciplinary system. Appeals by complainants are only permitted in exceptional cases, and existing sanctions cannot generally be increased. The system, the Court noted, is primarily aimed at maintaining professional standards rather than providing redress for patients.
This means that even in serious cases with significant consequences—such as the loss of a kidney and long-term incapacity—the options for further legal action remain restricted. While the Court acknowledged that delays in treatment caused prolonged uncertainty, it found no grounds to override the legal restriction on appeals.
The decision highlights ongoing tension between national disciplinary law and broader principles of legal protection. While Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights typically guarantees access to a court and a fair hearing, the Court held that such protections do not extend to this type of disciplinary procedure.
The ruling may have broader implications for future complaints, as patients dissatisfied with disciplinary outcomes will face limited avenues to challenge decisions, even when concerns are raised about the fairness of the process.