Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
13 March 2015
More faith in doctors and the General Medical Council needed
This week, the Daily Mail wrote an article 'More than 1,000 doctors are still practising despite convictions for sexual assault, possessing indecent pictures of children and threats to kill'.
This is exactly the sort of inaccurate and alarmist reportage that undermines the good work that both doctors and the GMC undertake on a daily basis. Let’s start with the basics: the GMC does not have the power to remove doctors from their ‘posts’ nor can it (or should it) be responsible for informing individual patients about a doctor’s record. The decision as to whether a doctor’s fitness to practise is impaired as a result of as conviction or caution is taken by an independently appointed committee of the MPTS. They hear all the evidence, submissions from lawyers for both sides and are skilled at weighing up very difficult and nuanced arguments whilst also being concerned for the protection of the profession’s reputation. All decisions of the MPTS are published on the website and are available for patients to see. Had the decisions the Daily Mail referred to been considered unduly lenient, a higher level of review is possible. What the article fails to cover is the circumstances of the offences listed which may have had a bearing on the outcome of those continuing to practice.
One final thing, Dr Bradbury was struck off by the MPTS meaning that he is no longer working as a doctor. So serious crimes do result in career bans. Need I say more.
12 March 2015
Case Update: High Court holds that GMC Panel should not have found consultant ophthalmologist to be dishonest
Soni v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 364 (Admin)
Judgment date 25th January 2015
The Appellant a consultant ophthalmologist appealed to the High Court against the decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel (the “Panel”) of the General Medical Council (the “GMC”) that his fitness to practice was impaired by reason of his misconduct relating to his receiving payment for the treatment on Trust premises of five private patients.
25 February 2015
Case Update: Opening notes do not fix deficiencies of imprecise allegations, High Court re-iterates
R (on the application of Squier) v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 299 (Admin)
Transcripts of judgments admissible and relevant in disciplinary proceedings as rebuttable prima facie evidence of underlying facts; sufficient particularisation to be within allegations and not within a draft opening note.
Decision date: 13th February 2015
The registrant faced fitness to practice proceedings relating to allegations that, in 6 cases between 2006 and 2010, she had failed to properly discharge her duties as an expert witness and had misled the courts. In each case she had given evidence as an expert consultant paediatric neuropathologist on the topic of alleged non-accidental head injury to infants (“shaken baby syndrome”).
25 February 2015
Case Update: Appeal on the basis that counsel was so incompetent that the hearing was unjust
Nicholas-Pillai v GMC [2015] EWHC 305 (Admin)
Judgment date: 22 January 2015
In 2008 and 2009 concerns surrounding the appellant’s practice were referred to the GMC and he was invited to undergo a performance assessment. The appellant agreed to this course of action and was subsequently graded as “unacceptable” in three areas: the assessment of patients’ condition, providing or arranging treatment, and record keeping. He was found to have performed below the minimum acceptable level in simulated surgery and in the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). His clinical performance was found to be “unacceptable” and his performance was found to be “deficient”.
18 February 2015
Specialist medical practitioners - what are the requirements?
Personal Injury analysis: when can the General Medical Council (GMC) reject a medical professional's application to be registered as a specialist? Julie Norris and Lucy Williams examine the Court of Appeal's decision in GMC v Nakhla.
This article first appeared in Lexis PSL Personal Injury in December 2014, interview conducted by Alex Heshmaty