Blog
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
Jemma Brimblecombe
30 July 2015
Case Update: High Court confirms that disciplinary panels should not refer to findings of fact from previous investigations which could taint the panel’s findings in relation to a registrant’s fitness to practise
Doris Enemuwe v Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) [2015] EWHC 2081 (Admin)
Judgement Date 8 July 2015
The appellant was employed as an agency midwife, and on 14 September 2012, the appellant was working at St Thomas’ Hospital when she was assisting with the birth of Patient A’s baby, who was accompanied by her husband during the birth. All charges, with one exception, related to the appellant’s behaviour or performance in relation to the 14 September 2012 date, when she was assisting with patient A’s birth. The final charge related to the appellant taking home confidential medical records following the internal Trust investigation, which were sensitive and confidential and should not have been stored at the appellant’s home.
30 July 2015
Case Update: Can a series of non-serious misconduct findings cumulatively amount to serious misconduct that impairs a doctor’s fitness to practice?
Schodlok v General Medical Council [2015] EWCA Civ 769
Judgement date 21/7/15
On 15 February 2013 a Fitness to Practice Panel (the Panel) of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found that Dr Schodlok (S), who at the relevant time had been working as an orthopaedic registrar in Woolwich, had been guilty of four instances of serious misconduct and six instances of misconduct which did not amount to serious misconduct.
30 July 2015
Case Update: The role of the disciplinary panel when faced with insufficient evidence
Hannah Eales considers the recent appeal of The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v The Nursing and Midwifery Council, Ms Winifred Nompumelelo Jozi [2015] EWHC 764 (Admin). She explores the role of the panel when faced with insufficient evidence, and the consequences of undercharging.
6 July 2015
The end of the duty of candour double standard?
When things go wrong in healthcare, should the duty of candour owed by providers to patients differ depending on whether the care was provided within a primary or secondary setting? Or whether the patient received care from the public or private sector? A single duty of candour should apply consistently across the healthcare service. Unfortunately, the duty of candour is currently triggered by two different thresholds depending upon who provides care to the patient.
28 May 2015
Case Update: Clarity urgently required on the test for dishonesty in regulatory proceedings as Administrative Court unable to rule on the issue
Kirschner v General Dental Council [2015] EWHC 1377
Judgement Date: 19 May 2015
Further to the cases of PSA v HCPC and David [2014] EWHC 4657 and Hussain v GMC [2014] EWCA Civ 2246, additional judicial comment has been made about the appropriate test for dishonesty in regulatory proceedings in the instant case.