GMC Investigation Committee – A Doctor’s Rights Explained

Where Case Examiners consider a warning but the doctor disputes the facts or is not willing to accept a warning, they have a right to an oral hearing.

What is the GMC Investigation Committee?

Where a doctor’s fitness to practise is not impaired, but there has been a significant departure from the principles set out in the General Medical Council’s (GMC) Good Medical Practice, a warning may be issued. This decision is taken by the GMC’s Case Examiners at the end of the investigation stage.

Where the Case Examiners consider that it may be appropriate to conclude a case with a warning, but the doctor disputes the facts or is not willing to accept a warning and exercises his/her right to an oral hearing, the Investigation Committee is convened to consider the case.

Under GMC rules, the Investigation Committee can make one of the following decisions:

That the matter should be closed without further action;
That a warning should be issued; or
Where new information presented to the hearing indicates that it would be appropriate to do so, the Committee will refer the allegation for determination by a medical practitioners tribunal of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

Doctors will receive correspondence from the GMC to give notice of the hearing, to confirm the arrangements and details of the allegation and the facts upon which it is based.

Do GMC warnings matter?

First thing to say is that a warning does not prevent a doctor from holding a licence to practise and does not place any restrictions on their registration.

However, GMC research “has uncovered a good deal of evidence that suggests severe and long-term impacts are occurring for many doctors receiving warnings from the GMC. Many who received warnings report that their current and ongoing employment is adversely affected. Some have been unable to work again at all.”

GMC warnings are publicly visible on the GMC online register for two years, along with a summary of it issued it. After this, the warning will no longer be visible. However, and more importantly, the GMC does retain a record of it and can disclose it to employers on request.

The same research referred to above found that:

“Employers react to warnings in a variety of ways. In some cases, warnings are ignored or even ridiculed. At the other extreme, the receipt of a warning leads to the end of the employment relationship with the doctor in question.”

GMC warnings can therefore have a disproportionate impact on a doctor’s career and reputation. In practice, a GMC warning might be a factor in career, career progression and/or the determinative factor in job applications.

Legal Representation – Considerations for Doctors

There are a number of things for a doctor to consider regarding the Investigation Committee:

Hearings are held in public – Investigation Committee hearings are generally held in public. In addition, the details of the hearings will also be publicly available, in advance, on the GMC’s website.
GMC’s legal representation – A legal assessor will be appointed to advise the Committee, and the GMC will normally be represented at the hearing by a barrister.
Hearing in absentia – The committee will, generally, decide to continue with the hearing even in the absence of the doctor or their legal representative.
Right to respond & submit evidence – At the hearing, the GMC will present the case for a warning to be issued against the doctor. The doctor, or their legal representative, will have the opportunity to respond and present any relevant documentary evidence.

The reality is that the GMC’s Investigation Committee, and general investigation process, is complex, adversarial and legalistic. There is clear evidence to point to the benefits of legal representation in fitness to practise proceedings, and doctors should carefully consider the need for legal advice. Contact us today for a no obligation and free telephone consultation about your case in the knowledge that you are speaking to one of the best in the business.

GMC “Rule 7 Letter” & Investigation Committee

GMC Case Examiners will write to a doctor at the conclusion of their investigation, setting out the allegations and evidence against the doctor. The doctor will be invited to respond (within 28 days) to the Rule 7 letter, and this response will be taken into account by the Case Examiner when making a final decision regarding the doctor’s case.

This therefore provides the doctor with an opportunity to resolve the matter without the need for an Investigation Committee and/or warning. Key here again is specialist legal advice that will guide the doctor in terms of their response, evidence and understanding of all the legal and process considerations.

Kings View Barristers

With over 30 years combined experience, Kings View Chambers have established itself as one of the best when it comes to fitness to practise defence. We fully understand that fitness to practise defence is not merely about processes and procedures. 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 are proud to be rated ‘excellent’ by our clients. Our commitment to client care is genuine in both seeking the very best outcomes for our clients, but also ensuring we do what we can to support them through the process.

Contact us today for a no obligation and free telephone consultation about your case in the knowledge that you are speaking to one of the best in the business.

Worth going it alone before the GMC?

MPTS Legal Representation – Does it Pay?

Our GMC & MPTS Case Success

In upholding the appeal, Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, said:

Failure to assess witness credibility and reliability The panel did not sufficiently evaluate the general credibility and reliability of key witnesses, whose evidence was essential to the charges. It failed to consider factors such as contradictions between witnesses' accounts and whether their testimonies should be approached with caution. This omission undermined the panel's ability to justify its conclusions.
Lack of explanation for preferred evidence The panel failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainants' evidence over the appellant nurse's and the paramedic's. Simply stating a preference for certain witnesses' accounts without detailed justification left the appellant without a clear understanding of why her evidence was rejected.
Errors in evidence evaluation The panel assessed each charge in isolation without considering broader patterns or contextual evidence. It failed to recognize that inaccuracies in one allegation (contradicted by CCTV) could cast doubt on the reliability of witnesses' accounts in other allegations, leading to flawed conclusions.
Improper handling of contextual evidence The panel neglected to evaluate the behaviour of the complainant nurses during the investigation, which was relevant to determining their credibility. Additionally, it overlooked the appellant nurse's claims that the allegations were fabricated to remove her from her managerial position.
Insufficient reasoning for findings The panel provided inadequate reasoning for its findings of misconduct. It did not fully explain how the evidence supported its conclusions, including why the NMC had met the burden of proof for each disputed allegation. This failure left the appellant with unsubstantiated conclusions, undermining the credibility of the process.

Lessons

This case highlights several critical considerations for fitness to practise tribunals. One key lesson is the importance of thoroughly evaluating the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly when their testimony is central to the charges. Without such assessments, the accuracy and fairness of the tribunal’s findings can be compromised. Witness accounts must be examined not only in isolation but also in a broader context, taking into account patterns and inconsistencies to achieve a holistic evaluation.

Additionally, tribunals must provide clear and rational reasoning for their decisions. Merely preferring one witness’s account over another without detailed explanations can lead to procedural unfairness. Ensuring transparency in decision-making fosters trust in the process and supports robust outcomes. Tribunals must also maintain procedural fairness by upholding the burden of proof on the prosecuting body. Accused parties should never feel pressured to disprove allegations, as fairness is crucial to preserving the system’s integrity.

Finally, the impact of procedural delays cannot be underestimated. Prolonged proceedings can cause undue harm to the accused, affecting their career and reputation. Timely resolutions are essential to upholding justice while minimizing unnecessary stress on all parties involved. By focusing on these principles, fitness-to-practise tribunals can enhance the fairness and effectiveness of their proceedings.

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.