Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
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.
17 April 2015
Case Update: The Court of Appeal allows Regulator’s appeal and overturns High Court decision to extend the time limit for the Registrant to issue an appeal
Nursing and Midwifery Council v Daniels [2015] EWCA Civ 225
Judgement date 20 March 2015
17 April 2015
Case Update: GMC appeal - Is dishonesty less serious if the motive and/or gain is not immediately apparent?
Alam v GMC [2015] EWHC 854 (QB)
Before Mr Justice Morgan
Background
Dr A lodged an appeal against a decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the Panel) of the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service of the GMC pursuant to section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 that her name be erased from the medical register. Dr A’s ground for appeal was that the Panel’s determination was wrong (CPR 52.11 (3)(a)).
The Panel sat for 31 days, at the culmination of which they determined that Dr A’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct.
