A judgment created by the General Medical Council has been uploaded to Bailli. We are extremely pleased that Collins J has created such an excellent judgment. This means the GMC will finally have to do some work.
Many complainants who have had their valid complaints thrown out at Registrars stage can now approach the General Medical Council again using the case law R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal. We suggest that this case is downloaded, saved and passed around. For all those complainants who didn't get their negligent doctors the first time around can now get them a second time.
Represent your case adding this case law which essentially states that unless a complaint is plainly ludicrous, it should be investigated under Stream 1 [most dangerous doctors]. If the General Medical Council refuse to consider, it the applicant should be able to win in court hands down on this case law. This is newly created GMC case law designed to take all doctors down Stream 1. The General Medical Council hired Mark Shaw QC to create the arguments within this case. Such excellent taste and all complainants should be thankful that he has created such a masterpiece.
The above case law applies to all new complainants as well. Yes, you can now take the doctor through the General Medical Council on any complaint. Moreover, this case law is useful for group actions, class actions and any other litigation.
Excellent. Just what the GMC ordered as part of their targets. Moreover, the other excellent feature is that doctors are not entitled to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ie that they have less rights than your average terrorist.
So what are you waiting for - take the case law and get that doctor into the General Medical Council like you always wanted to.
First it is important to email Mark Ellen and request a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Request the Triage documents if the complaint has been discarded at Registrars stage. Follow the directives listed by Collins J above and then outline your complaint to Neil Marshall NMarshall@gmc-uk.org . Neil will be awaiting your complaints and concerns as he is keen to ensure 100 percent of all complaints are investigated through Stream 1.
Many complainants who have had their valid complaints thrown out at Registrars stage can now approach the General Medical Council again using the case law R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal. We suggest that this case is downloaded, saved and passed around. For all those complainants who didn't get their negligent doctors the first time around can now get them a second time.
Represent your case adding this case law which essentially states that unless a complaint is plainly ludicrous, it should be investigated under Stream 1 [most dangerous doctors]. If the General Medical Council refuse to consider, it the applicant should be able to win in court hands down on this case law. This is newly created GMC case law designed to take all doctors down Stream 1. The General Medical Council hired Mark Shaw QC to create the arguments within this case. Such excellent taste and all complainants should be thankful that he has created such a masterpiece.
The above case law applies to all new complainants as well. Yes, you can now take the doctor through the General Medical Council on any complaint. Moreover, this case law is useful for group actions, class actions and any other litigation.
Excellent. Just what the GMC ordered as part of their targets. Moreover, the other excellent feature is that doctors are not entitled to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ie that they have less rights than your average terrorist.
So what are you waiting for - take the case law and get that doctor into the General Medical Council like you always wanted to.
First it is important to email Mark Ellen and request a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Request the Triage documents if the complaint has been discarded at Registrars stage. Follow the directives listed by Collins J above and then outline your complaint to Neil Marshall NMarshall@gmc-uk.org . Neil will be awaiting your complaints and concerns as he is keen to ensure 100 percent of all complaints are investigated through Stream 1.
"Nonetheless, there has been put in the bundle examples of questions that are asked of those applying for jobs. The questioning that is complained about is common to a number of such bodies. It reads thus:
"To the best of your knowledge have you been or are you currently subject to any fitness to practise proceedings by an appropriate licensing or regulatory body in the UK or any other country?"
That, on the face of it, would appear to require the answer "yes" and of course details, if by "proceedings" one includes any form of investigation.
It seems to me that there are two possible answers to this which provide the way in which this can sensibly be dealt with. The first is to say that it would be entirely inappropriate for any body which was employing a medical practitioner to form a question in a way which required an answer which disclosed a complaint having been made which was thrown out before any substantive hearing took place. It would be tantamount to saying that there had to be a disclosure of any allegation made, whether or not that allegation was unfounded. Secondly, the question, as framed, talks about fitness to practise proceedings. In my view, any medical practitioner faced with those words would be entitled to take the view that proceedings meant "proceedings at the stage of any hearing", as opposed to merely investigation. Thus, an honest answer to that question by someone in the circumstances of the claimant, would be "no".
Whichever be the correct way of approaching the matter, I would suggest that those responsible for these forms should very carefully consider whether the wording needs to be changed to make it absolutely clear that the obligation to refer to any proceedings, or any investigation, was limited to those which had reached the stage of a full hearing and a determination one way or the other. It may be that, where there has been a full hearing, even if that hearing has resulted in dismissal of the complaint, circumstances could be shown to be material when one looks at the allegations and the findings"
This is perhaps more relevant to doctors looking for work in the NHS.
It seems to me that Justice Collins is in no doubt that a doctor is under no obligation to disclose proceedings brought by the GMC until they have been proved by a Fitness to Practise Panel.
In other words, the question as presently phrased
"To the best of your knowledge have you been or are you currently subject to any fitness to practise proceedings by an appropriate licensing or regulatory body in the UK or any other country?"
Should be answered "No" until there has been a full FTP panel hearing and the doctor has been found guilty.
This is an extremely useful to many doctors. Both to those charged with completing pre-employment questionnaires incorrectly (approx on a month) and those doctors who are awaiting full hearings, several hundred
Well done Rita. This judgement needs to be tested before the GMC but it may well prove to be a seminal case.
"It seems to me that Justice Collins is in no doubt that a doctor is under no obligation to disclose proceedings brought by the GMC until they have been proved by a Fitness to Practise Panel."
...
"Should be answered "No" until there has been a full FTP panel hearing and the doctor has been found guilty."
Not so, according to the extract quoted - see reference to determination one way or the other, and even if the hearing resulted in dismissal the allegation and findings may be material in some circumstances.
Collins J did indeed say that a doctor need not disclose the existence of investigations until there had been a hearing and a finding (no doubt to the delight of many a guilty patient-abuser) and not at all if the matter never goes to hearing. But once it has gone to hearing, it may be disclosable whatever the outcome.
I'm not sure about this myself. Clearly, it's not right for a doctor to have to disclose every piffling complaint - that just turns the GMC into a handy tool for vexatious lunatics with an axe to grind. So it's fine not to have to disclose matters that were thrown out before hearing.
But what about matters that are scheduled for full hearing, or are being heard at the time the forms are filled in? Why shouldn't they should be disclosed, since there will, eventually be a finding of some kind and they will become disclosable at that point anyway?
Besides, a reasonable proportion of those findings will go against the accused, and at least some of those results will be correct. It seems to me that it is an unreasonable risk to patients to allow doctors who will, eventually, have to disclose something to defer that disclosure a moment longer than is necessary.
Primary principle in English law is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Mr Justice Collins elaborated the same principle in a case earlier this week. All doctors facing the GMC on these charges (1 per month) should kow about paras 27 and 28.
He also infers there may be a problem in employment law in using such forms though he did not express a formal opinion on the matter.
Seems like Dr Pal did us all a considerable service in obtaining this judgment. Please let those on GMC charges know about it.
Ah Does this mean I can take them to the high court for blighting my career for the last two years just for losing my temper?
WV clain Almost.....