Kings View Chambers success in GMC harassment case for doctor
Dr VB was accused of harassing a junior doctor. With support, advice and representation from barristers Catherine Stock and Stephen McCaffrey, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), were persuaded that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired, instead issuing him with a warning.
Dr VB was accused of harassing a junior doctor. With support, advice and representation from barristers Catherine Stock and Stephen McCaffrey, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), were persuaded that the doctor’s fitness to practise was not impaired, instead issuing him with a warning.
Important of reflection and remediation
Commenting on the case, barrister Stephen McCaffrey said:
“In this case, a finding by the Tribunal of impaired fitness to practise on both grounds of public protection and public interest could easily have been the outcome however, our client worked with us over a long period to ensure that he put himself in the best possible position and had covered the work he needed to put in place to be able to demonstrate insight.
“It is so important that doctors engage with us and work together with us to be able to achieve a successful outcome. This is the case for any type of allegation but even more so where allegations are about character and not simply clinical competence.”
Dr VB was delighted with the outcome and praised the work of Kings View Chambers on strategy and meticulous preparation saying:
“Regulatory hearings are a stressful experience for all. After going through my case, Catherine and Stephen both formed a strategy that worked very well for me and I got a better than expected outcome. They both have been meticulous and represented me as per my expectations.
“Catherine guided me to appropriate courses and collected all the documents needed for hearing well within time whereas Stephen represented my case. I could not find a fault in both. I highly recommend them.”
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.