Blog
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
Jemma Brimblecombe
22 May 2015
Case Update: High Court considers the power of a regulator to refer back to its Investigating Committee fresh allegations arising from the same facts as allegations already considered and referred by that Committee
R (Ireland and another) v Health and Care Professions Council [2015] EWHC 846 (Admin)
This was a judicial review of a decision by the Investigating Committee (“IC”) of the Health and Care Professions Council (“HCPC”) in which the IC concluded that they had jurisdiction to consider “new” allegations referred to them by the HCPC where those “new” allegations arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as those from which a previous set of allegations arose where those previous set of allegations had already considered by the IC and referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee of the HCPC (“CCC”). The judicial review was brought by two Claimants.
14 May 2015
Case Update: High Court terminate interim suspension of doctor facing gross negligence manslaughter charges following death of 6 year old child
Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 1277
This was an appeal against the decision of an Interim Orders Panel (the Panel) of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) on 8 January 2015 to impose an interim suspension order on Dr Bawa-Garba for 18 months pending a final determination about her fitness to practice.
8 May 2015
Case Update: High Court makes clear that allegations are not to be amended to meet changing evidence at hearing
Professional Standards Authority and (1) The Health and Care Professions Council (2) Benedict Doree [2015] EWHC 822 (Admin)
The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) referred to the High Court a decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the Committee) of the Health and Care Profession Council (HCPC) made on 24 July 2014, in respect of registered prosthetist/orthotist, Mr Doree.
6 May 2015
The duty to explain risks to patients: a new exposition on consent from the Supreme Court
The recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 makes it clear that the older case law based on medical paternalism and the assumption that patients are uninformed and incapable of understanding medical matters is now untenable. Access to information, the context in which medical practitioners operate and the way in which recipients of healthcare services view their relationship with practitioners has changed and this decision presents a change in the law on consent which is welcomed by Kingsley Napley’s Healthcare Standards initiative.
5 May 2015
Case Update: Can a Panel re-visit its decision and hear further evidence having provided a draft of its findings to the parties?
TZ v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 1001
The appellant doctor (TZ) was working as a Locum Senior House Officer in the emergency department of a hospital in London on 6 February 2010. A female patient (A), who was a young woman, attended the hospital complaining of abdominal pain. She was seen by TZ who examined her. It was alleged that TZ had performed a vaginal examination which was not clinically indicated and using his ungloved hand. It was further alleged that his behaviour was inappropriate in that he asked A for her telephone number, asked her irrelevant personal questions, tried to make arrangements to meet her socially (and at his private clinic in Putney) and made comments of a sexual nature. TZ’s case was that he had examined A in the usual way. Whilst he had examined her on his own and without a chaperone, he had not performed a vaginal examination. He said that he had taken her telephone number only because it was not in the medical notes. It is relevant to note that at the time of this examination and consultation, a Health Care Assistant (HCA) was working in the relevant department. Her evidence was potentially material.