No sanction for doctor MPTS fitness to practise case
Joint head of chambers, Stephen McCaffrey, successfully persuade MPTS to impose no sanctions for doctor in case involving allegations of dishonesty, intimidation and threatening behaviour.
This was a complex and very serious case involving a senior doctor on the verge of becoming a consultant facing numerous accusations. Dr A initially engaged her indemnity representatives but commented that she was “utterly shocked with their lack of legal know how and poor advice which resulted in my case being put forward to hearing.”
Dr A approached Stephen for a second opinion of her case and following this and agreement on a clear a strategy, she left her indemnity representatives and instructed Kings View Chambers to represent her in the case.
Stephen noted that “findings against her would have ended her career as it would undoubtedly have lead to erasure.”
Dr A’s case had already got past the case examiners at Rule 7. Other than one very small aspect which was accepted, Stephen advised Dr A to contest all the allegations, relying on Stephen’s expert cross-examination of the witnesses and his half time submission after the GMC closed their case in Stage 1.
Despite the GMC opposing every single application, the MPTS Tribunal acceded to Stephen’s application and threw out every single allegation made against Dr A due to the state of the evidence presented and the results of cross-examination.
The small aspect which was accepted proceeded to Stage 2 however, Stephen successfully argued that it did not amount to misconduct and so impairment was not a live issue. Again, the MPTS Tribunal agreed and refused to issue a warning.
Dr A, even with an admitted allegation, left the MPTS with no sanction whatever and is now back working.
Dr A, speaking after the MPTS proceedings said:
“Mr McCaffrey and his team are beyond excellent. I cannot thank them enough for their sheer dedication, expertise and efforts which went above and beyond their call of duty in my case I felt.
“Mr McCaffrey and his team stepped in at the point of preparation towards the hearing and they were just brilliant from the offset. They regularly communicated with me and had important strategy meetings which to me were fundamental in understanding my case from a legal direction which was fairly complex.
Mr McCaffrey’s navigation of my case through the hearing was something out of this world; a combination of skill, intuition, immense preparation, fantastic articulation of oral submissions and just an indescribable x-factor overall.
“He defended me strongly and I will forever be grateful because thankfully I received no sanctions or warnings and we walked away from the case. This could ONLY have been done by this legal team. This firm and the team are THE people you need if you find yourself in a position which I sadly did. I cannot recommend them enough. Thank you for absolutely everything.”
Aenean eleifend, quam quis ullamcorper venenatis, lorem neque venenatis mauris, et aliquet risus quam quis urna. Praesent vitae elit ut mauris semper ultricies sed eu nisi. Etiam dictum orci in enim pretium, et egestas odio consequat. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nam venenatis, lectus quis tristique efficitur, quam eros interdum nunc, sit amet commodo lacus eros at ligula. Maecenas vel nunc gravida, pharetra turpis vel, placerat neque. Vivamus varius tellus at ante posuere.
More News & Articles
What you need to know about the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) new strategy for managing concerns about pharmacy professionals.
Dental practice owners are vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of self-employed associate dentists – High Court
An important case for dental professionals but the principles apply equally to other healthcare professionals. We look at the case of Hughes v Rattan.
State indemnity scheme will not cover pharmacies taking part in COVID booster vaccination programme. What are the indemnity requirements for pharmacists?