Understanding GMC rule 7
Kings View Chambers’ joint head of Chambers and leading GMC Defence Barrister, Catherine Stock, represented Dr US. Before the GMC, she argued successfully that the doctor’s actions did not necessarily warrant a referral to a fitness to practise tribunal, given the circumstances.
As a result of Catherine’s representations, Dr US’s case was closed prior to Case Examiners stage (Rule 7 stage).
In this article, I want to look at GMC rule 7, what it entails and what is expected of doctors.
GMC Rule 7 – Decision by case examiners
Once the GMC has triaged a complaint about a doctor and found there may be a case to answer, an investigation will commence.
After the investigation stage, the case is passed to case examiners. It is at this stage where the GMC will write to the Doctor (also known as a rule 7 letter). The rule 7 letter will outline the allegations made in the complaint and ask the doctor to comment. The doctor has 28 days to respond to this letter.
It is important for doctors to respond to this letter. It is also strongly advisable that doctors who have been sent rule 7 letters, seek specialist legal advice.
Doctors are expected to show insight and reflection into the gravity of what may have happened and demonstrate that they have taken action to remedy any deficiencies. Remediation and can have a positive influence on the outcome of the case.
In more rare cases, doctors are invited to attend a meeting with a case examiner. This meeting will also be attended by a GMC lawyer. Doctors invited to attend such a meeting can, and is it strongly advisable should, be represented by a specialist GMC barrister.
Regardless of whether the doctor was asked for a written response of invited to attend a meeting, the next steps in the process is the same. Case examiners will consider all the evidence, including the doctor’s response in applying the ‘realistic prospect’ legal test. From this, only cases where there is a realistic prospect of establishing that the doctor’s fitness to practise is sufficiently impaired to justify action on registration will be referred to a Fitness to Practise tribunal hearing.
It is also open to case examiners to also close the case at this stage. Other outcomes can include:
- offer a warning
- refer the matter for adjudication before a fitness to practise (FTP) tribunal
- recommend the doctor comply with undertakings (in health or performance related issues) or in some conduct cases where the case examiners believe that the facts do amount to impaired fitness to practise but that an FTP tribunal would not erase the doctor, the case examiners may also offer undertakings.
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.