Page 25 - CIMA MCS Workbook February 2019 - Day 2 Tasks

CIMA FEBRUARY 2019 – MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY

TASK 2 – PROVISIONS

Trigger and task
You receive the following email

From: Simon Kovac (Clinical Director)
To: Financial Manager
Subject: Possible claims for negligence

You may have heard that Crowncare has recently received two claims arising from separate
instances in two of our practices. The claims have been submitted by a solicitor acting for each
patient, alleging that the patient suffered undue distress and injury as a result of treatment they
received.

As Clinical Director, I have thoroughly investigated both incidents. In the first case, I initially
confirmed that the member of staff (a hygienist) involved was appropriately qualified and
registered to perform the work which is the subject of the claim. I understand that the hygienist’s
hand slipped whilst scraping dental plaque from the patient’s teeth, resulting in the patient
suffering a cut mouth and considerable distress. The hygienist concerned is appropriately
qualified and has over fifteen years of practical experience. The hygienist is well respected and
always receives positive feedback from patients. This is the first such incident this person has
been involved in, and it would appear to be ‘just one of those things’ that happens, despite
people trying to do the right thing in the right way.

I’ve also spoken with Crowncare’s legal advisor on this issue. I’m advised that it is probable that
Crowncare will have to pay compensation to this patient and that, based upon reported cases,
‘the going rate’ for such a claim is approximately V$8,000.

In the second case, a patient is claiming for pain and discomfort suffered whilst having root canal
work performed. I have confirmed that the dentist concerned, recently recruited from another
practice, is appropriately qualified and registered to practice.

From discussion with the dentist and dental nurse involved, I have been assured that the dentist
explained the nature of the treatment before he commenced, including reference to the fact that
the patient would be likely to experience some pain and discomfort during the treatment, even
though they would receive a local anaesthetic before treatment commenced. I have reviewed the
patient records, which confirm that anaesthetic was administered and that the dose appears to
be reasonable based upon the characteristics of the patient involved.

I have also discussed this issue with our legal advisers. They are of the opinion that, based upon
the documented treatment records (recorded contemporaneously at the time treatment was
given) together with signed statements from the dentist and dental nurse involved, it is possible
(rather than probable) that Crowncare may be found liable in negligence. If found liable, it is
estimated that Crowncare would be required to make a payment of approximately V$2,500.

Depending upon how the two claims are resolved, we would try to offset any compensation paid
by making a claim against Crowncare’s professional indemnity insurance policy.

44 KAPLAN PUBLISHING