The Court of Appeal has upheld a ban preventing Mark Pettingill from representing the patients of Ewart Brown whose medical records were seized by police.

Mr Pettingill and Victoria Greening, both of Chancery Legal, had been ordered off the case by the Supreme Court over conflicts of interests.

Mark Diel, lawyer for the Bermuda Police Service, had argued that the pair could not represent the patients in the case because they had received confidential information in other positions.

Mr Pettingill was allegedly briefed about the case while he was Attorney-General for Bermuda, while Ms Greening allegedly received information while she was a Crown counsel.

Both denied having any confidential information about the matter and appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

But Sir Christopher Clarke, the president of the Court of Appeal, said the appeal had been dismissed.

Mr Pettingill’s firm’s clients were among 265 patients whose health records were seized during police raids on Dr Brown’s two medical clinics, Bermuda Healthcare Services in Paget and Brown-Darrell in Smith’s, in February 2017.

The raids were part of an investigation by police into allegations that the clinics ordered unnecessary diagnostic imaging scans to boost profits.

Dr Brown and BHCS’s medical director Mahesh Reddy have denied any wrongdoing in relation to the alleged over-scanning of patients and have not been charged with any offences.

Chancery acted for 150 patients who were given permission by the Supreme Court to intervene in a civil case brought by Dr Reddy and the clinics against Bermuda Police Service. The patients wanted to stop the police from getting access to their files and to have the medical records returned.

The court also refused an application to stay the effect of a Supreme Court decision which allowed files to be sent overseas.

Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams issued an order in February which set out a protocol for how the patient files could be used by the police, agreed to by lawyers for the police, the clinics and the patients.

Chancery Legal, for the patients, applied for the order to be stayed until the courts could determine the legality of the seizure of the files.

But the Court of Appeal found that because of the agreed measures to protect privacy, a refusal of the stay would not threaten patient confidentiality.

It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.