projects

Disciplinary measures against dentist under MedBG

RRB-Nr. 2014-000899Other CourtAug 20, 2014Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

C.M., acting through his position in X. GmbH, challenged a disciplinary warning and argued that the MedBG only applies to self-employed medical professionals. The Regierungsrat held that the statutory scope also covers activity meeting the substantive criteria of self-employed practice, regardless of corporate form. It further confirmed that a dentist must maintain a complete patient file and must inform patients about diagnosis, treatment, and treatment costs. In view of these professional breaches, the warning imposed as the mildest disciplinary sanction was deemed proportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Omnilex headnote

MedBG; disciplinary proceedings against a dentist; scope of application and professional duties. The applicability of the MedBG is not excluded merely because the professional acts as employee or manager of a medical company; decisive are the factual criteria distinguishing self-employed from dependent activity, as developed in tax and social-insurance law (consid. 2.1). A dentist must maintain a comprehensive medical record and must inform patients not only about diagnosis and treatment, but also about treatment costs. Where these professional duties are breached, a warning as the mildest disciplinary sanction is proportionate if, in light of the violation, milder measures would not suffice (consid. 2.2).

Full text

2014 Gesundheitsrecht 491

IV. Gesundheitsrecht

97 Disziplinarverfahren

  • Anwendbarkeit des MedBG
  • Die Führung einer umfassenden Krankenakte gehört zu den Pflichten eines Zahnarztes.
  • Der Zahnarzt muss Patientinnen und Patienten nicht nur über die Diagnose und die Behandlung aufklären, sondern auch über die Behandlungskosten.
  • Die ausgesprochene Verwarnung als mildeste Disziplinarstrafe ist angesichts der verletzten Berufspflichten angemessen. Aus dem Entscheid des Regierungsrats vom 20. August 2014 i.S. C.M. gegen Departement Gesundheit und Soziales (RRB-Nr. 2014-000899). Aus den Erwägungen

2.

2.1. C.M. macht geltend, dass das Gesetz über die Medizinalberufe nur auf Personen anwendbar sei, die einen universitären Medizinalberuf selbständig ausüben. Er aber sei Geschäftsführer der X. GmbH und als solcher Angestellter der GmbH und nicht selbständig erwerbend. Aufgrund der Verletzung des Bundesrechts sei die Verfügung aufzuheben. 2.2 Das spricht im 6. Kapitel (Berufsausübung und Fortbildung) in der Tat von der "selbständigen Ausübung eines universitären Medizinalberufs". Gemäss Botschaft vom 3. September 2004 werden als Kriterien zur Abgrenzung zwischen der selbständigen und der unselbständiger Erwerbstätigkeit diejenigen herbeigezogen, die im Steuer- und Sozialversicherungsrecht gelten. Gemäss den von der Rechtsprechung entwickelten Kriterien spreche für eine unselbstän-

Keywords

disciplinary proceedingsdentistmedical recordspatient informationtreatment costsprofessional dutiesproportionalitywarning

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the MedBG applies to a dentist acting as manager and employee of a GmbH rather than as a self-employed practitioner.

Extracted holding

Yes. The law also applies where the factual criteria correspond to the self-employed exercise of a medical profession; corporate form and employment status are not decisive.

Extracted reasoning

The distinction between self-employed and dependent activity follows the criteria developed in tax and social-insurance law. On the facts, the appellant's professional activity fell within the scope of the MedBG.

Key legal question

Whether the disciplinary findings regarding record-keeping and patient information were established.

Extracted holding

Yes. A dentist must keep a comprehensive medical file and must inform patients not only about diagnosis and treatment, but also about treatment costs.

Extracted reasoning

These duties belong to the professional obligations of a dentist; the conduct breached those duties.

Key legal question

Whether the warning as the mildest disciplinary sanction was proportionate.

Extracted holding

Yes. In light of the breached professional duties, the warning was appropriate.

Extracted reasoning

Given the nature of the violations, the least severe disciplinary penalty was sufficient and proportionate.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.