GMC’s duty of care. Is legal representation the answer?

In a previous post, we reported on the truly tragic case of a consultant anaesthetist with an exemplary professional record who died by suicide after being informed of a General Medical Council (GMC) investigation into his fitness to practise. The investigation was initiated following a referral from the police regarding allegations made by a 15-year-old patient, who alleged that the doctor had committed a sexual assault whilst she was under his care.  However, the evidence was inconsistent with the doctor being the perpetrator, and no charges were brought against him.

In a case brought by the deceased doctor’s family, the High Court ruled that the GMC did not have a duty of care saying, in summary:

1. It would conflict with the statutory responsibilities of the GMC to impose a duty of care regarding its communications with doctors. The regulatory framework restricts the GMC’s liability for negligence in such circumstances.
2. The GMC’s specific actions (like notifying the doctor) or omissions (things it could have done beforehand) were not found to create a duty of care. The court also noted that the GMC did not assume responsibility for the doctor’s well-being.
3. Such a duty could hinder its ability to effectively conduct investigations and protect the public.
4. Regulators, like the GMC, are not liable in negligence for how they carry out their statutory functions.

Whilst this case was determined on the individual merits of the doctor’s case, it clearly has far-reaching implications for doctors (and other regulated healthcare professionals). 

We have in the past written extensively on the role of GMC in relation to doctors under investigation.  As far back as 2016, the then General Medical Council (GMC) Chief Executive, Niall Dickson, wrote in the Daily Mail, that, speaking about the GMC:

‘We are not here to protect doctors – their interests are protected by others. Our job is to protect the public.‘

The language may have softened somewhat in the last few years, with an increasing emphasis now placed on the role of the GMC in helping to support doctors.  But if you find yourself under investigation, you may quickly find that the GMC is far less concerned about protecting doctors than you first thought – its two main concerns are patient safety and maintaining public confidence in the profession as a whole.

The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear.

Unique and practical courses focusing on impairment, reflection, insight, and remediation at highly competitive prices.

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.