Doctor’s fitness to practise not impaired in another successful case for Kings View
Kings View successfully persuade medical practitioners’ tribunal that doctor’s fitness to practise is not impaired as hearing is closed at stage 1.
Kings View successfully persuade medical practitioners’ tribunal that doctor’s fitness to practise is not impaired as hearing is closed at stage 1.
Dr SS came to us over three years ago following a referral by an employer to NHSE and the GMC. The allegations were around dishonesty at work. Witnesses made a series of allegations about his conduct and behaviour.
It had always been his case that these allegations were false and malicious. We represented him at the NHSE investigatory interview, following which they decided not to take the matter any further.
The GMC however decided to pursue the allegations to a medical practitioners’ tribunal fitness to practise hearing. Dr SS was represented by Kings View at the medical practitioners’ tribunal hearing and following cross-examination of the GMC witnesses, we made a half-time submission to have the allegations dismissed before the defence case.
The Tribunal agreed with the defence and dismissed all of the dishonesty allegations and the mischief allegations. Dr SS gave evidence as part of the defence case in respect of the few remaining factual allegations and in line with the defence strategy. The tribunal again agreed with his version of events and found them unproved too. The case concluded in entirety at Stage 1.
Fitness to practise defence barrister and joint head of chambers, Stephen McCaffrey, commented:
“Dr SS was a classic example of our ability to obtain the best outcomes when clients come to us at the earliest stages.
“He worked with us to agree a single defence strategy from the outset which worked with NHSE and again at the MPTS. Getting expert advice you trust at the outset cannot be overstated.”
Dr SS said:
“My GMC tribunal collapsed at Stage 1, thanks to Kings View. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are going through something similar to what I did.
“Nothing really prepares you for the stress of going through a GMC investigation, especially a tribunal. The only experience I had had with the GMC was occasional lectures at medical school when the GMC came down to frighten us by showing how doing seemingly reasonable sounding things were going to get us all struck off.
“To give you an idea of how responsive Kings View were, I emailed Stephen McCaffrey one afternoon. Within three hours, he was on the phone to me and explained exactly what was going on, and it took a lot of pressure off because I finally understood what I was facing. From then on, he was my guy.
“Stephen got most of the allegations thrown out at half-time, including the most serious charge, which would have resulted in suspension or erasure. The final decision was that nothing was proved, and the case collapsed in the first stage. That is the best outcome possible, and my GMC registration is untarnished.
“I am very glad that I did not go with my indemnity provider.
“As a doctor, you might see a patient who has seen so many different doctors with different opinions, it’s all a bit of a mess by the time they come to you. It makes sense to get proper advice from the start.
“I would wholeheartedly recommend Kings View to anyone.”
Is legal representation the answer?
It is widely accepted and proven that legal representation makes a real difference to the outcome of investigations and results in lesser sanctions for doctors.
What is also unquestionably clear is that GMC investigations and MPTS hearings are complex, daunting, prolonged and legalistic leaving doctors stressed and anxious. Where legal advice and representation can have the biggest impact on this, is helping doctors understand the process, what to expect and how to engage with the GMC during an investigation and hearing.
Research has shown that registrant’s engagement and legal representation can impact on decisions about seriousness, and that the lack of legal representation has been identified as being associated with more severe sanctions outcomes in fitness to practise cases, stating:
“Legal representation was seen as important by participants because legal advice could support and guide registrants through the FtP process, which is complex and legalistic. Legal advice was seen as important in aiding registrants to understand regulators’ expectations, especially in terms of the need for registrants to demonstrate insight and perhaps to show evidence of remediation activities. Lack of legal representation was, therefore, seen to potentially have an impact in terms of the seriousness of the outcome for registrants who are perhaps unaware of how to present their case to best effect.”
A compassionate approach to legal representation
The right legal advice and representation is not just about the legalities and technicalities of a case. Our barristers fully understand the stress and anxiety that doctors experience during prolonged GMC investigations.
We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.
We never lose sight of the human aspects of FtP investigations and hearings. We will always give an open and honest assessment of cases, but we will marry that with an approach that also supports health and care professionals through the duration of a case.
“I was not optimistic about the case, I felt that it is a lost case that we couldn’t do much about and especially just before the start of the trial I lost my confidence and was very nervous. Mr McCaffrey was there to prove me wrong. He turned everything around in a victorious , panegyric manner. I was stunned.” – CL
Catherine is professional, empathic and very knowledgeable. She provided all the necessary assistance throughout the long thorough investigation. – AR
A colleague recommended me to Catherine. She was very experienced , professional, empathetic , non-judgemental and listened to me. – Mel
I found myself consumed with dark thoughts, isolated and afraid. Stephen worked with me and slowly but surely formulated a plan not to just to fight my case and win, but to build me back up bit by bit so as to prepare me to face external scrutiny and present with confidence to panels where this was necessary. – FJ
What you can Expect when Instructing Kings View
All clients are entitled to an initial, no obligation and free telephone consultation about their case. During this consultation, we will outline the stages and next steps, including indicative timeframes and fixed price quotations for preparation and representation and confirmed in writing at each and every stage.
We understand that timescales are entirely dependent on the stage you are at in proceedings, what work needs to be done and dictated by internal investigations or hearing dates. We always meet those timescales however should more time be needed, then we will apply for such on your behalf and with your permission.
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.
More News & Articles
General Dental Council close case with no further action
The General Dental Council has closed its investigation into our clients fitness to practise with no further action.
GMC’s duty of care. Is legal representation the answer?
The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear. We look at the value of legal representation to assist doctors with the stress and anxiety associated with investigations.
Does the GMC have a duty of care to doctors under investigation?
In Suresh & Ors v GMC, the Court examined the GMC’s duty of care and Human Rights Act obligations for doctors under investigation.