PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel"

Transcription

1 PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 16/11/2015 to 23/11/2015 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Nital Chimanlal KARIA GMC reference number: Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Misconduct MB ChB 2002 University of Bristol Outcome on impairment Impaired Summary of outcome Suspension, 12 months. Review hearing directed Panel: Lay Panellist (Chair): Lay Panellist: Medical Panellist: Mrs Carrie Ryan-Palmer Ms Val Evans Dr Vishal Kaushik Legal Assessor: Panel Secretaries: Attendance and Representation: Medical Practitioner: Medical Practitioner s Representative: GMC Representative: Mr Peter Gribble Ms Laura Wilson Ms Esther Morton Present and represented Mr George Hugh-Jones, Counsel, instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur Mr Steve McNally, Counsel 1

2 Allegation and Findings of Fact That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended): 1. On the 4 February 2014 you completed a claim form ( claim form ) and made a claim against your Income Protection Policy with Aviva Health UK Limited. Found Proved 2. XXX 3. XXX 4. XXX 5. In the claim form you signed a declaration indicating that you would notify Aviva Health UK Limited immediately if your relevant circumstances changed in any way or if you undertook any work, paid or unpaid. a. You did not comply with the terms of that signed declaration in that you failed to inform Aviva Health UK Limited that you had undertaken employment. Found Proved in its entirety 6. In the claim form you signed a declaration indicating that the information you provided in support of the claim was true and complete to the best of your knowledge. a. You did not comply with the terms of that signed declaration in that the information you provided to Aviva Health UK Limited was not true and complete. Found Proved in its entirety 7. XXX a. XXX b. XXX c. X 8. On the 14 April 2014 you were contacted by telephone by Aviva to discuss your claim. During that telephone call you provided the following information. a. XXX 2

3 9. Between the 4 February 2014 and the 2 May 2014 you worked as a locum General Practitioner at 60 sessions on the dates, and at the GP practices, outlined in Schedule 1. Admitted and Found Proved 10. In respect to allegations paragraphs 3 8 above, your conduct was: a. misleading; Admitted and Found Proved in relation to paragraphs XXX and 8 Found Proved in relation to paragraphs XXX 5, 6 and X b. dishonest. Admitted and Found Proved in relation to paragraphs X and 8 Found Proved in relation to paragraphs XX, 5, 6, X and X And that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired because of your misconduct. Attendance of Press / Public The Panel agreed, in accordance with Rule 41 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, that the press and public be excluded from those parts of the hearing where matters under consideration were deemed confidential. Determination on Facts Dr Karia: Hearing in Private 1. At the beginning of this hearing the panel, in accordance with Rule 41(3)(X) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 (the Rules) determined that, as parts of this hearing relate to matters involving XXX, the hearing should proceed in private when such matters are discussed. A redacted version of this determination will be produced in due course. Admissions 2. At the outset of the hearing Mr Hugh-Jones made the following admissions on your behalf: Paragraph 7 3

4 XXX Paragraph 8 a. XXX b. XXX On the 14 April 2014 you were contacted by telephone by Aviva to discuss your claim. During that telephone call you provided the following information. a. XXX Paragraph 9 Between the 4 February 2014 and the 2 May 2014 you worked as a locum General Practitioner at 60 sessions on the dates, and at the GP practices, outlined in Schedule 1. Admitted and Found Proved Paragraph 10 In respect to allegations paragraphs 3 8 above, your conduct was: a. misleading; Admitted and Found Proved in relation to paragraphs XX and 8 b. dishonest. Admitted and Found Proved in relation to paragraphs XX and 8 3. The panel therefore announced as admitted and found proved paragraph 7 a and b, paragraph 8 in its entirety, paragraph 9 in its entirety, paragraph 10a in relation to paragraphs XX and 8, and paragraph 10b in relation to 7b and 8. The admissions stood following a subsequent amendment to the stem of paragraph 10. Amendments to the Allegation 4. During the course of the hearing, Mr McNally applied under Rule 17(3) to make a minor amendment to the allegation. Mr McNally submitted that the amendment related to terminology in the allegation, and that paragraph 10 of the 4

5 allegation referred to allegations 3-8 rather than paragraphs 3-8. This application was not opposed by Mr Hugh-Jones on your behalf. The panel was satisfied that the proposed alterations could be made without injustice and were, in fact, in accordance with the procedure of the MPTS. Accordingly, it has accepted the following amendment: 10. In respect to allegations paragraphs 3 8 above, your conduct was: a. misleading; b. dishonest. Application to Hear Evidence via Videolink 5. During the course of the hearing, Mr McNally made applications to hear evidence from two witnesses via videolink. Neither application was opposed by Mr Hugh-Jones on your behalf. The panel determined that, by receiving the evidence from both witnesses via videolink, the hearing would proceed expeditiously, whilst the witnesses would be both seen and heard. Background 6. You took out an income protection policy with Aviva Health UK Limited (Aviva). On 4 February 2014 a claim form was completed and a claim was made against your income protection policy with Aviva. It was alleged that, in that claim form, you stated that XXX and that since XXX you had attempted to do occasional locum work but had not been successful with this. It was alleged that you stated, in the claim form, that you XXX. 7. Aviva had concerns about the claim and took a number of actions in relation to those concerns. These included arranging XXX and putting you under covert surveillance over a number of days. During that surveillance Aviva had further interviews with you. They eventually rejected your claim and cancelled your policy. They also reported you to the GMC in relation to the concerns which they had identified. Evidence Received 8. The panel received statements (with related exhibits) from the following people: Ms A, Practice Manager at Oakwood Medical Practice Ms B, Practice Manager at Woodlands Medical Practice Ms C, Practice Manager at Connaught Medical Practice Ms D, Practice Manager at Parkfield Medical Centre 5

6 Ms E, Practice Manager at The River Surgery Ms F, Practice Manager at Arnos Grove Medical Centre Ms G, Practice Manager at Wick Health Centre Ms H, General Practitioner at Brick Lane Surgery 9. The panel received oral evidence, in addition to written statements (with related exhibits), from Ms I, Technical Case Manager in the Income Protection Department at Aviva and from Mr J, Claims Consultant in the Income Protection Department at Aviva. 10. Following an application made by Mr McNally, the panel determined that their oral evidence would be heard via videolink. The panel found both witnesses to be clear, credible and convincing. They answered questions openly and referred where necessary to documents. 11. It was acknowledged on your behalf that you had signed the declarations in the claim form, stating that you would notify Aviva if your relevant circumstances changed in any way or if you undertook any form of work. The declarations also asked for confirmation that the information which you had provided in the claim form was true and complete to the best of your knowledge. It was alleged that you did not comply with the terms of those declarations, in that you failed to inform Aviva of work carried out by you, and that the information within that claim form was not true and complete. 12. You admitted that, on 19 March 2014 you were XXX in relation to your claim for income protection with Aviva, XXX. 13. You admitted that, on 14 April 2014 you were contacted by Aviva by telephone and stated that, in your circumstances at that time, you were unable to work in any capacity. You also admitted that, between 4 February 2014 and 2 May 2014 you undertook 60 sessions as a locum GP. 14. The panel heard no evidence from you. It received a copy of your driving licence. Findings 15. The panel has given consideration to all the evidence adduced in this case, both oral and documentary, and has taken account of the submissions made by Mr McNally on behalf of the GMC, and the submissions made by Mr Hugh-Jones on your behalf. 16. The panel considered each paragraph of the allegation separately. Accordingly, it made the following findings of fact: Paragraph 1 6

7 On the 4 February 2014 you completed a claim form ( claim form ) and made a claim against your Income Protection Policy with Aviva Health UK Limited. Found Proved 17. The panel was provided with your individual income protection claim form, dated 4 February 2014, and the accompanying letter dated 5 February 2014 from Hampton Dean Ltd. The panel determined that, by signing your claim form in a number of places, you had confirmed that it was true and complete to the best of your knowledge. You also confirmed that you would notify Aviva of any change of circumstances or if you should carry out any work, paid or unpaid. The panel noted that you subsequently engaged with Aviva and provided further information in support of your claim, during telephone conversations with those handling your claim, and during your claims visit from Ms K. 18. The panel therefore found this paragraph proved. Paragraph 2 XXX 19. XXX Paragraph 3 XXX 20. XXX Paragraph 4 XXX 21. XXX Paragraph 5 In the claim form you signed a declaration indicating that you would notify Aviva Health UK Limited immediately if your relevant circumstances changed in any way or if you undertook any work, paid or unpaid. 7

8 a. You did not comply with the terms of that signed declaration in that you failed to inform Aviva Health UK Limited that you had undertaken employment. Found Proved in its entirety 22. On your behalf, Mr Hugh-Jones acknowledged your agreement that you had signed the declaration indicating that you would notify Aviva if your relevant circumstances changed or if you undertook any work. In Aviva s Recommendation Report dated 9 May 2014 it was written that you stated you had undertaken a few locum sessions in May 2013, and that you had worked a bit in June, July and August 2013, and had completed some work every month since. The panel also had regard to Schedule 1, which contained the admitted dates and locations of your locum sessions. One such session was on 5 February 2014, the day after you had signed and dated this form. You admitted to working a total of 60 locum shifts between 5 February 2014 and 30 April In light of your admissions, the panel found the evidence to be clear and unequivocal that you had failed to inform Aviva that you had undertaken employment, and therefore that you had not complied with the terms to which you had agreed in the form. The panel found this paragraph of the allegation proved. Paragraph 6 In the claim form you signed a declaration indicating that the information you provided in support of the claim was true and complete to the best of your knowledge. a. You did not comply with the terms of that signed declaration in that the information you provided to Aviva Health UK Limited was not true and complete. Found Proved in its entirety 23. On your behalf, Mr Hugh-Jones acknowledged your agreement that you had signed the declaration indicating that the claim form was true and complete to the best of your knowledge. The panel noted that, in response to the question regarding the date from which you were unable to work to your full capacity, you stated 19 September This was corroborated by Ms K s report, following her visit to you on 19 March In her report, Ms K stated that you had informed her that you had been absent from work since September The panel also noted that, in reply to a request for information about a return to work on the claim form, XXX. 8

9 24. In her oral evidence, Ms I confirmed the accuracy of the Recommendation Report dated 9 May 2014 which noted your admission that you had undertaken a few locum sessions in May 2013, and that you had worked a bit in June, July and August 2013, and had completed some work every month since. This was not disputed on your behalf. 25. The panel determined that there was evidence that the claim form was not true and complete to the best of your knowledge. It also determined that your remarks regarding a return to work were inaccurate. The panel therefore found this paragraph of the allegation proved. Paragraph 7 XXX 26. XXX 27. XXX 28. XXX Paragraph 10 XXX XXX XXX In respect to allegations paragraphs 3 8 above, your conduct was: a. misleading; Admitted and Found Proved in relation to paragraphs 7a, 7b and 8 Found Proved in relation to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7c 29. You admitted that your conduct in relation to some of the information which you had provided to Ms K was misleading. You also admitted that, in the telephone call with Aviva on 14 April 2014, your assertion that in your present circumstances you were not able to work in any capacity was misleading. 9

10 30. The panel determined that your conduct regarding your completion of the claim form, the signing of declarations and the information which you gave during your claim visit from Ms K all had the capacity to mislead. The panel therefore found paragraph 10a proved in relation to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7c of the allegation. 31. XXX 32. XXX b. dishonest. Admitted and Found Proved in relation to paragraphs X and 8 Found Proved in relation to paragraphs X, 5, 6, X and X 33. In relation to paragraph 5: the panel found that you did not comply with the terms of the signed declaration, as you failed to inform Aviva that you had undertaken locum sessions since May 2013 and that you continued to undertake locum sessions between 5 February 2014 and 30 April It noted that you only disclosed to Aviva that you had been undertaking locum work following your discussion with Ms I once surveillance had been undertaken and your claim had been declined by Aviva. The panel determined that this conduct was dishonest and persistently so, as you only confessed the truth once your claim had been denied. 34. In relation to paragraph 6: the panel determined that, in light of the evidence that you had worked locum sessions since May 2013, you knew at the time of signing the claim form and the declarations that the information it contained was not true and complete. The panel determined, therefore, that your conduct was dishonest. 35. In relation to paragraph 7a and 7c: the panel determined that the information which you provided to Ms I was dishonest. The panel considered all of the evidence, both written and oral, which had been provided by Aviva. XXX. The panel noted that your claim visit from Ms K took place on 19 March 2014, and that you admitted undertaking locum sessions on both 18 March 2014 and 20 March The panel determined that the information which you had provided to Ms K was deliberately untrue and, therefore, dishonest. 36. The panel, therefore, found paragraph 10b proved in relation to paragraphs X 5, 6, XX of the allegation. Determination on Impairment 10

11 Dr Karia: Submissions 1. On behalf of the GMC, Mr McNally submitted that your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of your misconduct. 2. Mr McNally reminded the panel of Dame Janet Smith s fifth Shipman report in which she identified four tests for panels where impairment of a doctor s fitness to practise is being considered. Mr McNally submitted that three of the four tests applied to your case: bringing the profession into disrepute breaching one of the fundamental tenets of the profession, and the doctor s integrity could not be relied upon 3. Mr McNally submitted that your dishonesty was serious, persistent and occurred over a period of time. He submitted that you evidently lacked insight into that dishonesty. He added that your dishonesty was even more striking in the context of the chronology of events, as you worked locum sessions on the day after signing and dating the claim form, in the days immediately before and immediately after being visited by Ms K, and on the same day on which you spoke to Mr J on the telephone. Despite your locum sessions you continued to assert that you were unable to work until after your claim for income protection had been declined. 4. Mr McNally submitted that probity was at the heart of the medical profession and that Good Medical Practice has clear guidance about acting with honesty and integrity. He submitted that your conduct fell so seriously short of those standards that the panel should find that your fitness to practise is impaired. 5. On your behalf, Mr Hugh-Jones relayed your admission to the allegation and stated that your fitness to practise is impaired. He submitted that you admitted a significant degree of acceptance and blame, and that you had insight into your behaviour. He submitted that you accepted that your actions amounted to serious misconduct and that your representations to Aviva were serious and dishonest. 6. Mr Hugh-Jones submitted that your representations to Aviva were a single venture of dishonesty spread out over three months and included the submission of the form, the visit from Ms K and the discussion with Ms I. The Panel s Decision 7. The panel reminded itself that there is no burden of proof at this stage. It is a matter for the panel to determine whether your fitness to practise is impaired, exercising its own judgment. It bore in mind its responsibility to ensure the 11

12 protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Misconduct 8. First, the panel considered whether your actions amounted to misconduct that was serious. You were dishonest when you signed and dated your claim form as a true and accurate record, in your dealings with the staff who handled your claim on behalf of Aviva, and during your visit from Ms K. 9. You were under an obligation to inform Aviva of each locum session which you undertook, once you had signed and dated the declaration agreeing to provide notification of any changes to your circumstances or if you had undertaken any work. You undertook 60 locum sessions in 10 different GP practices over the period of three months between signing the form and your claim being declined. On each occasion you worked a locum session you were under an obligation to inform Aviva. You always failed to do this. The panel determined that such dishonesty was deliberate, persistent and protracted. 10. The panel, therefore, determined that your dishonest actions amounted to misconduct that was serious. Impairment by Reason of Misconduct 11. Second, the panel considered whether your misconduct was so serious that your fitness to practise is impaired as a result. 12. There is no evidence to suggest that you present a risk to patients or that there are concerns regarding your clinical skills. 13. However, the panel considered the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession. Good Medical Practice (2013) states that doctors should be honest and open and act with integrity. The panel determined that you were neither honest nor open with Aviva in your pursuit of a claim on your income protection policy, despite the opportunities which you were given to be so. 14. The evidence showed that your dishonesty ended only when it was discovered by Aviva and you were confronted about it. The panel determined that this lack of insight into your conduct was compounded by your apparent lack of remorse in the face of discovery, only showing concern about gaining a further income protection policy. 12

13 15. Despite being told by Mr Hugh-Jones of your significant degree of acceptance, blame and insight, the panel has seen no evidence to support this assertion. The panel has also received no evidence to show that you understand the impact which your dishonesty has had and may have on colleagues, patients or the public. The panel accepted that dishonesty is difficult to remediate, but considered that it had seen no evidence to suggest any attempts to remediate on your part. 16. The panel took account of your partial admissions in relation to the allegation at the outset of the hearing, and your full admissions once the facts had been found proved by the panel. The panel was not of the view, though, that this demonstrated full insight into your dishonesty. 17. The panel determined that your dishonest actions have brought the profession into disrepute. It was of the view that the medical profession and the public would consider your conduct to have been deplorable, and that public confidence in the profession would be damaged were a finding of impairment not made in this case. 18. In all the circumstances, the panel has determined that your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of your misconduct. Determination on Sanction Dr Karia: 1. Having determined that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct, the panel has now considered what action, if any, it should take with regard to your registration. 2. In so doing, the panel has given careful consideration to all the evidence adduced, together with Mr McNally s submissions on behalf of the General Medical Council (GMC) and those of Mr Hugh-Jones on your behalf. Evidence 3. During the course of Mr Hugh-Jones submissions, the panel was provided with a substantial bundle of documents. This contained evidence of general continuing professional development (CPD), CPD relating to ethics and medicine, a reflective statement from you, a letter from your wife, testimonials from colleagues, and feedback from patients and colleagues. Submissions 13

14 4. Mr McNally submitted that the appropriate sanction in your case was erasure. He submitted that such a serious departure from the principles set out in Good Medical Practice as your misconduct had been, would undermine public confidence in the profession. He submitted that this was a calculated and planned dishonesty, in which you persistently repeated false information and failed to disclose that you were working locum sessions. He submitted that you knew and understood that you were under an obligation to inform Aviva of all work which you undertook, and that you knew it would influence your claim for income protection. 5. Mr McNally submitted that you had displayed a lack of remorse and a lack of insight into your behaviour. This was evidenced, he submitted, by your request for a refund of your premiums and your enquiries regarding alternative income protection immediately after learning that your policy with Aviva had been cancelled. 6. In relation to the documents submitted on your behalf, Mr McNally stated that it was for the panel to assess the weight of this evidence, and that the panel would be justified in having reservations about your reflections on your dishonesty, as it could be regarded as an attempt to minimise your actions. Mr McNally referred the panel to paragraph 133 of the Sanctions Guidance, which addressed the seriousness of dishonesty related to matters outside a doctor s clinical responsibility. 7. Mr Hugh-Jones reminded the panel of the declaration made on your behalf, at the outset of the impairment stage, that your fitness to practise is currently impaired. He suggested that the matters found proved amounted to dishonesty of a limited nature, albeit repeated. Mr Hugh-Jones submitted, in the circumstances, that suspension would adequately maintain public confidence in the profession, and that erasing your name from the Medical Register would be disproportionate. 8. Mr Hugh-Jones referred the panel to evidence of the relevant CPD which you had undertaken. This included attendance at courses on ethics, reading and producing written reflections and being mentored by Mr L, who has known you for over 15 years and been your mentor since Mr Hugh-Jones also referred the panel to various testimonials from professional medical colleagues and from individuals who know you through your charity work. He stated that those testimonials attested to your clinical excellence and reminded the panel of paragraph 29 of the case of Giele v GMC [2005] EWHC2143 (Admin), which stated: I do not doubt that the maintenance of public confidence in the profession must outweigh the interests of the individual doctor. But that confidence will surely be maintained by imposing such sanction as is in all the circumstances appropriate. Thus in considering the maintenance of confidence, the existence of a public interest in not ending the career of a competent doctor will play a part. Furthermore, the fact that many patients and colleagues have, in the knowledge of the misconduct found, clearly indicated their views that erasure was not needed is a matter which can carry some weight in deciding how confidence can properly be maintained. 14

15 9. Mr Hugh-Jones submitted that your previously unblemished career, your strong list of acts of reparation, the credible evidence of your insight contained within your reflections and the testimonials provided by those who know you well demonstrate your true character. He submitted that the panel could rest assured that your dishonesty was an isolated episode of misconduct which will not be repeated. 10. Mr Hugh-Jones submitted that erasing your name from the medical register would be devastating and disproportionate. He informed the panel of your personal and financial circumstances. He submitted that the views of your medical colleagues in the knowledge of the allegation and as expressed in the testimonials, was that erasure was not necessary. This, Mr Hugh-Jones submitted, provided some weight in how public confidence in the profession could be maintained by suspending you. He further submitted that it was not in the public interest to end the career of a competent doctor, particularly in light of the pattern of early retirement in general practice. The Panel s Approach 11. In reaching its decision, the panel has taken account of the Sanctions Guidance (August 2015), particularly paragraphs 13, 15 and 16. The panel reminded itself that: The main reason for imposing sanctions is to protect the public. This is the statutory overarching objective, which includes: a. protecting the health, safety and wellbeing of the public b. maintaining public confidence in the profession c. promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for the members of the profession. Sanctions are not imposed to punish or discipline doctors, but they may have a punitive effect. 12. Throughout its deliberations, the panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing your interests with the public interest. It is imperative that patients are able to trust doctors with their lives and health, so doctors must make sure that their conduct justifies their patients trust in them and the public s trust in the profession the reputation of the profession as a whole is more important than the interests of any individual doctor. The public interest includes, amongst other things, the protection of patients, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. This is in line with the overarching objective of the GMC. 15

16 13. The panel has already given detailed determinations on facts and impairment and it has taken those matters into account during its deliberations at the sanction stage. Aggravating Factors 14. The panel considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in your case. Your dishonesty was sustained over three months and related to the accounts provided by you to a range of people. On every one of the 60 occasions during which you worked a locum session you were under an obligation to inform Aviva of the work. You failed to do this. Further, despite the various opportunities which you had to end your deception of Aviva, your misconduct only ended once your application had been refused and you had been confronted by Ms I. 15. You did not give oral evidence at this hearing, although you produced a reflective statement, as part of the substantial defence bundle. The panel was unable to fully explore the depths of your insight solely from this statement. It was not clear to the panel, therefore, what you had learnt or understood from these proceedings. The panel was also mindful that your reflections had not been tested through cross-examination. Mitigating Factors 16. The panel considered that there were a number of mitigating factors in your case. It took account of your admissions to Ms I as detailed in the Aviva Recommendation Report dated 9 May 2014, where it was recorded that you admitted to having worked locum sessions. Of your own volition, you supplied Aviva with full and frank disclosure of information which would otherwise not have been obtained. Despite your regrettable lack of expressed remorse to Aviva, it is to your credit that Ms I noted in her report He was very open about the fact that he had worked and confirmed that he wished that he had told us about this. 17. The panel attributed due weight to the testimonial evidence which had been provided by colleagues and friends. Almost without exception, they spoke of their shock at learning of the allegation and described your misconduct as being completely out of character. The panel noted that these testimonials were given in response to a letter from your instructing solicitors which set out the allegation and stated that you had provided inaccurate information which was misleading and dishonest. The panel was informed of your circumstances at the time of your dishonesty. These included difficulties in your GP partnership, XXX and the financial difficulties which you were facing. 18. You were previously of good character and the panel has no evidence to suggest that there are, or have ever been, any other concerns about your conduct or practice. Indeed, the panel has seen clear evidence attesting to your clinical excellence. 16

17 No Action 19. In coming to its decision regarding the appropriate sanction, if any, to impose in this case, the panel first considered whether to conclude the case by taking no action. The panel determined that this case was not exceptional and in view of your frank admissions and the serious nature of the panel s findings on impairment, it would be neither sufficient, proportionate nor in the public interest to conclude this case by taking no action. Conditions 20. The panel next considered whether it would be sufficient to impose conditions on your registration. It bore in mind that any conditions imposed would need to be appropriate, proportionate, workable and measurable. 21. The panel considered that a period of conditional registration would not address or adequately reflect the serious nature of your misconduct. It further considered that, in a case involving lack of integrity, conditions would not be appropriate or workable, and would not maintain public confidence in the medical profession. 22. The panel, therefore, determined that it would not be sufficient to direct the imposition of conditions on your registration. Suspension 23. The panel next considered whether suspending your registration would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. Paragraph 80 of the Sanctions Guidance states: Some or all of the following factors being present (this list is not exhaustive) would indicate suspension may be appropriate: a. a serious breach of Good medical practice where the misconduct is not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and where therefore complete removal from the medical register would not be in the public interest, but which is so serious that any sanction lower than a suspension would not be sufficient to serve the need to protect the public or maintain confidence in doctors f. no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since incident 17

18 g. the panel is satisfied the doctor has insight and does not pose a significant risk of repeating behaviour. 24. It is clear that your misconduct was contrary to the guidance provided by paragraph 65 of Good Medical Practice which states You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients trust in you and the public s trust in the profession. The panel considered that your misconduct was serious. In order, therefore, to uphold public confidence in the profession and to ensure the maintenance and promotion of proper standards of conduct and behaviour, it determined that any sanction lower than suspension would not be appropriate. 25. The panel considered whether or not you have demonstrated insight into your conduct. It noted that you have undertaken a number of courses regarding ethics in the medical profession and that you have attempted to reflect both on your own case and on other ethical dilemmas regarding GMC registration. The panel attributed due weight to the fact that you began to engage with a mentor in 2014 and have been seeing him regularly. You have also sought other ways to manage any future stress, for example through mindfulness. In your reflective statement you said to reflect insight on the steps of remediation, I am in the process of organising further professional mentoring sessions that can guide me through the remediation process after further reflecting on my case. The gravity of my errors will stay with me forever. 26. Given your limited admissions and the panel s findings at the first stage of this hearing, the panel has concerns about the level of insight which you have demonstrated that you currently possess. The panel has not been able to satisfy itself that you fully comprehend the impact which your dishonest conduct will have on public confidence in the profession. It has noted, however, your assertion in your reflective statement that in attending the Professional Ethics Courses, I understand the importance of gaining and maintaining trust in the profession and the potential for my actions to have a negative spiralling effect on the medical profession as a whole. 27. The panel considered that your reflective statement served to demonstrate that you have limited but emerging insight into your dishonest conduct. It is of note that the evidence which had been placed before this panel indicates that your previous good character aligned with your conduct, since the events which have brought you here, have resulted in the high regard of your colleagues, friends and patients which you enjoy. 28. You have engaged with the GMC investigation and informed your employers once the GMC investigation commenced. There is evidence that you have also taken steps to address your future reactions to stressful situations. The panel is, therefore, satisfied that you do not pose a significant risk of repeating your dishonest conduct. 18

19 29. During the course of its deliberation, the panel considered the Sanctions Guidance in relation to erasure. It was of the view that, although you had departed from the principles set out in Good Medical Practice, your behaviour was not fundamentally incompatible with being a doctor. 30. In determining the appropriate sanction the panel acknowledged the difficulties it faced. You committed a serious act of dishonesty. It is indisputable that seeking to defraud your insurer was wholly reprehensible. The fact that a combination of Aviva s assiduous processing of your claim and your ineptitude in the manner of your making it resulted in no financial loss to the company does not in any way excuse your duplicity. Action has to be taken in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. However, there are no concerns in relation to your clinical skills and there are a number of testimonials attesting to your clinical skills and excellence. Your permanent removal from the Medical Register would be a significant loss to the profession and the public. 31. The panel was of the view that, although your dishonesty was persistent and covered up, you have displayed some insight into your dishonest conduct and its consequences. The panel, therefore, determined that erasure would be a disproportionate sanction in this case, and was therefore not appropriate. 32. Having satisfied itself that erasure was a disproportionate and inappropriate sanction in this case, the panel determined that suspension is the appropriate sanction. In order to mark the seriousness with which the panel viewed your misconduct, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession, the panel determined that your suspension must be for the maximum period allowed. Your registration will be suspended for 12 months. 33. The effect of the panel s decision is that, unless you exercise your right of appeal, you will be suspended from the Medical Register 28 days from the date on which written notice of this decision is deemed to have been served upon you. Review hearing directed 34. The panel has directed that shortly before the end of the period of suspension, your case will be reviewed by a fitness to practise panel. At that hearing, the panel reviewing your case may be assisted by the following: Evidence that you fully appreciate the gravity and impact of your misconduct (for example, through a reflective portfolio), Objective evidence that your mentoring has enabled you to develop full insight into the gravity and impact of your misconduct, Objective evidence of your integrity and honest conduct since the imposition of your suspension, 19

20 Objective evidence that you have maintained your skills and knowledge, including evidence of CPD, Relevant, up-to-date testimonials and references from people of good standing, Any other evidence that you think will assist the panel. Determination on Immediate Order Dr Karia: 1. Having determined that you will be suspended from the Medical Register for a period of 12 months, the panel has considered, in accordance with Section 38 of the Medical Act 1983, as amended, whether your registration should be subject to an immediate order. 2. On behalf of the GMC, Mr McNally submitted that the matter of an immediate order is one for the panel to determine, and that he is not instructed to seek an immediate order. 3. On your behalf, Mr Hugh-Jones submitted that there is no need for an immediate order on your registration. He referred the panel to the case of Davey v GDC [2015] QBD 8 th October 2015, particularly paragraph The panel considered paragraph 148 of the Sanctions Guidance which states that: The panel may impose an immediate order where it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public, or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the best interests of the doctor. 5. The panel has determined that, given that there are no patient safety concerns and that there are no issues regarding your clinical practice, it is not necessary to make an order suspending your registration immediately. The panel is of the view that the substantive direction for suspension will adequately address the public interest concerns identified in this case. 6. This means that the substantive direction for suspension, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served upon you, unless you lodge an appeal in the interim. 7. That concludes this case. Confirmed Date 23 November 2015 Mrs Carrie Ryan-Palmer, Chair 20

21 Schedule 1 MEDICAL PRACTICE DATE OF SESSION (number is the number of sessions at the specified practice) Oakwood Medical Practice 5 February Hayat Medical Centre 7 February Arnos Grove Medical Centre 10 February Arnos Grove Medical Centre 11 February Tynemouth Medical Practice 12 February Arnos Grove Medical Centre 13 February Arnos Grove Medical Centre 17 February Wick Health Centre 17 February The River Surgery 18 February Connaught Medical Practice 18 February Wick Health Centre 20 February Wick Health Centre 21 February Hayat Medical Centre 4 March Woodlands Medical Practice 5 March Hayat Medical Centre 6 March Connaught Medical Practice 11 March Connaught Medical Practice 12 March Connaught Medical Practice 13 March Tynemouth Medical Practice 13 March Connaught Medical Practice 14 March Connaught Medical Practice 17 March Oakwood Medical Practice 18 March Hayat Medical Centre 18 March Oakwood Medical Practice 20 March Hayat Medical Centre 20 March The River Surgery 21 March Hayat Medical Centre 24 March Connaught Medical Practice 25 March Hayat Medical Centre 25 March Connaught Medical Practice 27 March Hayat Medical Centre 27 March Oakwood Medical Practice 28 March Hayat Medical Centre 28 March Hayat Medical Centre 31 March Connaught Medical Practice 1 April Oakwood Medical Practice 2 April Hayat Medical Centre 3 April Oakwood Medical Practice 4 April Connaught Medical Practice 8 April

22 Tynemouth Medical Practice 9 April Tynemouth Medical Practice 10 April Brick Lane Surgery 11 April Parkfield Medical Centre 14 April The River Surgery 15 April Connaught Medical Practice 15 April Hayat Medical Centre 15 April Oakwood Medical Practice 16 April Wick Health Centre 16 April Brick Lane Surgery 16 April Connaught Medical Practice 17 April Hayat Medical Centre 17 April Wick Health Centre 22 April Connaught Medical Practice 22 April Tynemouth Medical Practice 22 April Tynemouth Medical Practice 23 April Tynemouth Medical Practice 24 April Hayat Medical Centre 24 April Hayat Medical Centre 25 April Hayat Medical Centre 28 April Connaught Medical Practice 30 April

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel. Date: 12 January 2015. Medical Practitioner

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel. Date: 12 January 2015. Medical Practitioner PUBLIC RECORD Date: 12 January 2015 Name of Medical Practitioner Dr Andrea HERMANN Primary medical qualification State Exam Med 1994 Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen GMC reference number

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 20 December 2013 NMC, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant Nurse: Anne Elizabeth Lambert NMC PIN: 73I1261E Part(s) of the register: Registered

More information

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel. Dates 07 May 2015-08 May 2015. Medical Practitioner. Dr John Stanley Partington

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel. Dates 07 May 2015-08 May 2015. Medical Practitioner. Dr John Stanley Partington PUBLIC RECORD Dates 07 May 2015-08 May 2015 Name of Medical Practitioner Dr John Stanley Partington Primary medical qualification MB BS 1987 University of Newcastle upon Tyne GMC reference number 3184336

More information

That being registered under the Medical Act 1983, as amended

That being registered under the Medical Act 1983, as amended PUBLIC RECORD Dates 26 January 2015-30 January 2015 Name of Medical Practitioner Mr Gurdip Singh SHERGILL Primary medical qualification MB BS 1989 University of London GMC reference number 3311282 Type

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Review Meeting. 19 October 2015

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Review Meeting. 19 October 2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Order Review Meeting 19 October 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Venetsiya

More information

SEFTON, K L Professional Conduct Committee July 2014 Page -1/5-

SEFTON, K L Professional Conduct Committee July 2014 Page -1/5- HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC SEFTON, Kirsty Louise Registration No: 207951 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JULY 2014 Outcome: Erasure with immediate suspension Kirsty Louise SEFTON, a dental nurse, registered

More information

Wales. 1. On 6 November 2014 at the Gwynedd Magistrates Court you were convicted of:

Wales. 1. On 6 November 2014 at the Gwynedd Magistrates Court you were convicted of: PUBLIC RECORD Date 02 April 2015 Name of Medical Practitioner Dr Gwyn Haydn Roberts Primary medical qualification MB BCh 1993 University of Wales GMC reference number 3558355 Type of case New - Conviction

More information

Conditions of Practice 25 February 2015

Conditions of Practice 25 February 2015 Conditions of Practice 25 February 2015 Name of Registrant: Robert Carl Sturch NMC PIN: 08F0181E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub Part 1 Adult 29 October 2008 Substantive Order Reviewed: Suspension

More information

Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub part 1 Adult Nursing Level 1

Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub part 1 Adult Nursing Level 1 Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 19 October 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Tracey Michelle

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Review Hearing. 18 August 2015

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Review Hearing. 18 August 2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Order Review Hearing 18 August 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Julie

More information

Fitness to Practise Determination

Fitness to Practise Determination Fitness to Practise Determination The following case was heard by a Fitness to Practise Panel. It is presented here to give an example of one possible outcome of breaching a principle in Good Medical Practice.

More information

That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):

That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended): PUBLIC RECORD Dates 21 January 2015-23 January 2015 Name of Medical Practitioner Dr James Dillwyn Douglas ALLAN Primary medical qualification MB BS 1988 University of London GMC reference number 3299881

More information

ALLAN, JCU Professional Conduct Committee March 2012 Page -3/9-

ALLAN, JCU Professional Conduct Committee March 2012 Page -3/9- GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MARCH 2012 ALLAN, John Charles Urquhart Registration No: 55394 John Charles Urquhart Allan registered as of 20 Exford Ave, Harefield, Southampton,

More information

PUBLIC DETERMINATION HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

PUBLIC DETERMINATION HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC PUBLIC DETERMINATION HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from the text. BOUNDFORD, Rhianna

More information

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC TAHIR, Fizan Registration No: 81954 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JANUARY 2016 Outcome: Order of Conditions with a review. Immediate order imposed. Fizan TAHIR, a dentist registered

More information

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel

PUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Fitness to Practise Panel PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 17/08/2015 21/08/2015 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Nawaraj SUBEDI GMC reference number: 6082676 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Misconduct New - Conviction / Caution

More information

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2013 SHANKS, Thomas Alan Registration No: 54323

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2013 SHANKS, Thomas Alan Registration No: 54323 HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 2013 SHANKS, Thomas Alan Registration No: 54323 Thomas Alan SHANKS, registered as of Meadowhead, Moor Road, Strathblane,

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. 29-30 January 2015 NMC, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. 29-30 January 2015 NMC, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 29-30 January 2015 NMC, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Registrant: NMC PIN: Patience Yakwange Kaya 10I3513E Part(s) of the register:

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. 21-22 & 26 July 2011. Nursing and Midwifery Council, First Floor, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. 21-22 & 26 July 2011. Nursing and Midwifery Council, First Floor, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 21-22 & 26 July 2011 Nursing and Midwifery Council, First Floor, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant: NMC PIN: Part(s) of the Register:

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 29 August 2013 NMC, 61 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant: NMC PIN: Amanda Elizabeth Settle 06A1906E Part of the register: Registered Nurse

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Reviewed: 13 October 2015

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Reviewed: 13 October 2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Order Review Meeting 13 October 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of Registrant: Sheilagh Anne Hathaway

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 8-11 June 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of Registrant Nurse: Mrs Jacqueline Ellen Middleton

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Hearing. 25 November 2011. Nursing and Midwifery Council, 85 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4TQ

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Hearing. 25 November 2011. Nursing and Midwifery Council, 85 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4TQ Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 25 November 2011 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 85 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 4TQ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Part(s) of the register:

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Review Meeting. 25 September 2015

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Order Review Meeting. 25 September 2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Order Review Meeting 25 September 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ/ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN:

More information

Investigating Committee. New Interim order. 6 July 2012

Investigating Committee. New Interim order. 6 July 2012 Investigating Committee New Interim Order 6 July 2012 MWB Euston Fitzrovia, 85 Tottenham Court Road London, W1T 4TQ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Gloria Rachel Faith Ndema 00G1445O Part(s) of the

More information

Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing

Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing Date of hearing: 5 February 2015 Name of doctor: Dr Veda Hari Prabhakar Ponnaiah Reference Number: 5200011 Registered qualifications: MB BS 1993 University

More information

Dr Andy Thompson (Chair/ Lay member) Nalini Varma (Lay member) Hildah Jiah (Registrant member) Not present and not represented

Dr Andy Thompson (Chair/ Lay member) Nalini Varma (Lay member) Hildah Jiah (Registrant member) Not present and not represented Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing Consensual Panel Determination 03 October 2014 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant: NMC PIN: Miss Sandra Gentles

More information

Miss Carmel Rouhani: Professional conduct panel outcome. Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education

Miss Carmel Rouhani: Professional conduct panel outcome. Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education Miss Carmel Rouhani: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education 15 September 2015 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 3-4 C. Preliminary

More information

Medical Schools Conference

Medical Schools Conference Medical Schools Conference Dealing with dishonesty in student Fitness to Practise cases for all professionals, a finding of dishonesty lays at the top of the spectrum of misconduct Lord Steyn Sarah Ellson,

More information

NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL DECISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL DECISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT PANEL DECISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE Teacher: Ms Maxine Jackson Teacher Ref: 7277360 NCTL

More information

Guidance for decision makers on the impact of criminal convictions and cautions

Guidance for decision makers on the impact of criminal convictions and cautions Guidance for decision makers on the impact of criminal convictions and cautions Page 1 of 9 Contents Introduction... 3 Reporting Criminal Proceedings... 3 General Principles... 4 Applications for Registration...

More information

Guidance on making decisions on voluntary erasure applications

Guidance on making decisions on voluntary erasure applications Guidance on making decisions on voluntary erasure applications 1 A doctor may submit an application for voluntary erasure at any point in the fitness to practise process. The procedures for dealing with

More information

New Interim Order Hearing. 24 May 2013. Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE

New Interim Order Hearing. 24 May 2013. Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE New Interim Order Hearing 24 May 2013 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of registrant: NMC Pin: Mr Sindani Mkhweli 00C1059E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse- Sub

More information

SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 11362-2015. and. Before:

SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 11362-2015. and. Before: SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 11362-2015 BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and NANCY JOSEPHINE LEE Respondent Before: Mr K. W. Duncan

More information

Health Committee information

Health Committee information Health Committee information This leaflet is for nurses and midwives who have been referred to our Health Committee because an allegation has been made against them and, after initial investigation, we

More information

Improving the Performance of Doctors. Complaints Investigations and Remediation

Improving the Performance of Doctors. Complaints Investigations and Remediation Improving the Performance of Doctors Complaints Investigations and Remediation SHARING INFORMATION WITH PATIENTS AND CARERS HAPIA GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE 2014 HEALTHWATCH AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ASSOCIATION

More information

Disciplinary Policy and Procedure

Disciplinary Policy and Procedure Disciplinary Policy and Procedure Policy 1. Purpose of the policy and procedure Disciplinary rules are important for the running of the University so that everyone understands what is expected of them

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Hearing. Monday 14 December Wednesday 16 December 2015 Friday 1 April 2016

Conduct and Competence Committee. Substantive Hearing. Monday 14 December Wednesday 16 December 2015 Friday 1 April 2016 Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing Monday 14 December Wednesday 16 December 2015 Friday 1 April 2016 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1EJ Registrant Nurse:

More information

Information for registrants. What happens if a concern is raised about me?

Information for registrants. What happens if a concern is raised about me? Information for registrants What happens if a concern is raised about me? Contents About this brochure 1 What is fitness to practise? 1 What can I expect from you? 3 How are fitness to practise concerns

More information

STUDENT DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

STUDENT DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES STUDENT DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES This procedure applies to all cases of misconduct committed after 1 September 2009. Impartial advice about these procedures may be sought from the Student Progress Service,

More information

GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JUNE 2011 BLAND, Christopher John Registration No: 51363

GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JUNE 2011 BLAND, Christopher John Registration No: 51363 GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JUNE 2011 BLAND, Christopher John Registration No: 51363 Christopher John Bland registered as of 18 Southend Ave, DARLINGTON, Co Durham DL3 7HL; BDS

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. Nursing and Midwifery Council 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1 EJ. 11-13 November 2015

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. Nursing and Midwifery Council 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1 EJ. 11-13 November 2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing Nursing and Midwifery Council 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1 EJ 11-13 November 2015 Name of Registrant: NMC PIN: Mr William Jefferson Aikines-Aryeetey

More information

Medical students: professional values and fitness to practise. Guidance from the GMC and the MSC

Medical students: professional values and fitness to practise. Guidance from the GMC and the MSC Education Medical students: professional values and fitness to practise Guidance from the GMC and the MSC The duties of a doctor registered with the General Medical Council Patients must be able to trust

More information

Criminal Proceedings and Regulatory Proceedings Within and Outside the UK

Criminal Proceedings and Regulatory Proceedings Within and Outside the UK Council 15 September 2004 7b To consider Criminal Proceedings and Regulatory Proceedings Within and Outside the UK Issue 1. Whether doctors should be required to report to the GMC when they are the subject

More information

In this Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the following meanings:

In this Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the following meanings: DEFINITIONS In this Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the following meanings: i. Diocesan Schools Commission means the education

More information

FLEXIBLE WORKER GUIDELINES DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

FLEXIBLE WORKER GUIDELINES DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES FLEXIBLE WORKER GUIDELINES DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES NHS Professionals disciplinary guidelines for flexible workers July 2014 1 1. Scope These procedures are to be used for breaches of discipline or complaints

More information

ERRANT CONDUCT AND POOR PERFORMANCE BY EXTERNAL ADVOCATES CPS GUIDANCE TO CHAIRS OF JOINT ADVOCATE SELECTION COMMITTEES

ERRANT CONDUCT AND POOR PERFORMANCE BY EXTERNAL ADVOCATES CPS GUIDANCE TO CHAIRS OF JOINT ADVOCATE SELECTION COMMITTEES ERRANT CONDUCT AND POOR PERFORMANCE BY EXTERNAL ADVOCATES CPS GUIDANCE TO CHAIRS OF JOINT ADVOCATE SELECTION COMMITTEES 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. The CPS is publicly accountable for the selection and performance

More information

ROYAL HOLLOWAY University of London. DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE (for all staff other than academic teaching staff)

ROYAL HOLLOWAY University of London. DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE (for all staff other than academic teaching staff) APPROVED BY COUNCIL September 2002 ROYAL HOLLOWAY University of London DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE (for all staff other than academic teaching staff) Disciplinary Policy and Procedure September 2002

More information

Guidance on health and character

Guidance on health and character Guidance on health and character Who is this document for?... 2 About the structure of this document... 2 Section 1: Introduction... 4 About us (the HPC)... 4 How we are run... 5 About registration...

More information

DISCIPLINE (Ordinance Policy)

DISCIPLINE (Ordinance Policy) UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER ORDINANCE DISCIPLINE (Ordinance Policy) For use in: For use by: Owner All Divisions/Schools/Departments/Colleges of the University All University employees Staffing Policy Committee

More information

Professional Suitability Policy and Procedure

Professional Suitability Policy and Procedure Professional Suitability Policy and Procedure Concerns about a student s professional suitability should be acted upon promptly in order to provide support to the student and as early intervention may

More information

Throughout the Procedure outlined below, fitness to study is understood as defined by University legislation:

Throughout the Procedure outlined below, fitness to study is understood as defined by University legislation: This Fitness to Study Procedure has three stages depending on the perceived level of risk, the severity of the problem and the student s engagement with efforts to respond to it. In urgent cases, at the

More information

PART 1: Relations with Colleagues, Clients, Employers and. Code of Ethics

PART 1: Relations with Colleagues, Clients, Employers and. Code of Ethics PART 1: Relations with Colleagues, Clients, Employers and Code of Ethics INTRODUCTION CODE OF ETHICS Membership of The Institution of Engineers of Ireland (Engineers Ireland) gives you rights and privileges.

More information

SUPPORT STAFF DISCIPLINARY AND DISMISSAL PROCEDURE

SUPPORT STAFF DISCIPLINARY AND DISMISSAL PROCEDURE SUPPORT STAFF DISCIPLINARY AND DISMISSAL PROCEDURE SUPPORT STAFF DISCIPLINARY AND DISMISSAL PROCEDURE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Procedure has been established to help and encourage members of staff to achieve

More information

CORPUS CHRISTI CATHOLIC ACADEMY TRUST DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE

CORPUS CHRISTI CATHOLIC ACADEMY TRUST DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE DEFINITIONS In this Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the following meanings: i. Diocesan Education Service means the education

More information

Cardinal Pole Catholic School DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE

Cardinal Pole Catholic School DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE DEFINITIONS In this Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the following meanings: i. Diocesan Schools Commission means the education

More information

Insolvency practitioner regulation regulatory objectives and oversight powers

Insolvency practitioner regulation regulatory objectives and oversight powers Insolvency practitioner regulation regulatory objectives and oversight powers Legislative changes introduced on 1 October 2015 December 2015 1 Contents Introduction Part 1: Overview of regulatory objectives

More information

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. 30 November 2015-01 December 2015. Nursing and Midwifery Council:

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing. 30 November 2015-01 December 2015. Nursing and Midwifery Council: Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 30 November 2015-01 December 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1EJ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Ms Loretta Mary

More information

NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 03/15/02 See News Release 020 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 00-B-3532 IN RE: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This disciplinary

More information

Local Disciplinary Policy

Local Disciplinary Policy DOCUMENT INFORMATION Origination/author: Judith Coslett, Head of Human Resources This document replaces: Local Disciplinary and Dismissal Procedure 05 Date/detail of consultation: Staff Forum and Unison

More information

AND ANTHONY PETER PLIMMER (01-9062) DETERMINATION OF THE INQUIRY: 5-7, 10-11 DECEMBER 2012

AND ANTHONY PETER PLIMMER (01-9062) DETERMINATION OF THE INQUIRY: 5-7, 10-11 DECEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL F(11)25 AND ANTHONY PETER PLIMMER (01-9062) DETERMINATION OF THE INQUIRY: 5-7, 10-11 DECEMBER 2012 APPLICATION

More information

In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS

In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff

More information

This procedure applies where formal disciplinary action is commenced on or after 11 December 2013

This procedure applies where formal disciplinary action is commenced on or after 11 December 2013 Appendix X Disciplinary Procedure This procedure applies where formal disciplinary action is commenced on or after 11 December 2013 1 Purpose 1.1 This procedure is designed to help and encourage all employees

More information

PARALEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES 2015

PARALEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES 2015 PARALEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES 2015 Rule 1. Citation, Commencement and Interpretation 1.1 These Rules may be cited as the Paralegal Practitioners Rules 2015 and come into force on 20th April 2015. These

More information

NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 29 LCDT 009/11. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 29 LCDT 009/11. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 29 LCDT 009/11 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF THE NEW ZEALAND

More information

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Kwek Hui Ying Heard on: Tuesday, 14 June 2016 Location: ACCA Offices, The Adelphi, 1-11

More information

Glasgow Kelvin College. Disciplinary Policy and Procedure

Glasgow Kelvin College. Disciplinary Policy and Procedure Appendix 1 Glasgow Kelvin College Disciplinary Policy and Procedure Document Control Information Status: Responsibility for Document and its implementation Responsibility for document review: Current version

More information

This policy applies equally to all full time and part time employees on a permanent or fixed-term contract.

This policy applies equally to all full time and part time employees on a permanent or fixed-term contract. Discipline Policy 1. Introduction This policy set outs how Monitor will deal with employee conduct which falls below the expected standard. It is Monitor s aim to use the policy as a means of encouraging

More information

Birkbeck, University of London. Student Complaints Policy and Procedure

Birkbeck, University of London. Student Complaints Policy and Procedure Birkbeck, University of London Student Complaints Policy and Procedure Introduction 1. Birkbeck College is committed to giving to you the best student experience possible. However, there may be times when

More information

Information for doctors who have undertakings or conditions that affect their practice

Information for doctors who have undertakings or conditions that affect their practice Information for doctors who have undertakings or conditions that affect their practice What are undertakings and conditions? Undertakings and conditions are used to restrict a doctor s practice or require

More information

DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE

DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE Content Policy statement 1. Principles 2. Standards 3. Disciplinary procedure 4. Investigation

More information

Redundancy & Redeployment Policy. Transformation & Human Resources

Redundancy & Redeployment Policy. Transformation & Human Resources Redundancy & Redeployment Policy Transformation & Human Resources Issued by HR Policy Team Effective from REDUNDANCY AND REDEPLOYMENT POLICY 1 General Principles Purpose 1.1 The purpose of the policy is

More information

Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers

Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers Advice on factors relating to decisions leading to the prohibition of teachers from the teaching profession October 2015 Contents 1. Introduction 3 About

More information

DISCIPLINARY POLICY & PROCEDURE FOR SCHOOL BASED STAFF

DISCIPLINARY POLICY & PROCEDURE FOR SCHOOL BASED STAFF DISCIPLINARY POLICY & PROCEDURE FOR SCHOOL BASED STAFF Based on Leeds City Council recommendations January 2012 1 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Scope of the Procedure 3. Core Principles 4. Management of

More information

Disciplinary Policy & Procedure. Version 2.0

Disciplinary Policy & Procedure. Version 2.0 Disciplinary Policy & Procedure Version 2.0 Date of Last Update: February 2015 Version Control Note: minor updates increase version number by 0.1, major updates increase version number by 1.0. Version

More information

Resources Directorate Council Tax Reduction Scheme Sanction Policy

Resources Directorate Council Tax Reduction Scheme Sanction Policy Internal Ref: 19-02-51 Review date January 2016 Version No. V1.1 Resources Directorate Council Tax Reduction Scheme Sanction Policy Copyright North East Lincolnshire Council. All rights reserved including

More information

UKLPG APPROVED AUTOGAS INSTALLER CONSUMER CODE

UKLPG APPROVED AUTOGAS INSTALLER CONSUMER CODE UKLPG APPROVED AUTOGAS INSTALLER CONSUMER CODE e-mail autogas@uklpg.org Website www.drivelpg.co.uk Office 2.2, Christchurch Business Centre, Grange Road, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 4JD. CONTENTS SECTION

More information

PLAGIARISM POLICY. Regulations on Unfair Practices and Disciplinary Action & Procedure

PLAGIARISM POLICY. Regulations on Unfair Practices and Disciplinary Action & Procedure 24 March 2014 PLAGIARISM POLICY Regulations on Unfair Practices and Disciplinary Action & Procedure Introduction: These regulations have been made to ensure the academic integrity and professional reputation

More information

1. This is an appeal by Gregor McGill FRICS & Gregor C. McGill & Co. (firm).

1. This is an appeal by Gregor McGill FRICS & Gregor C. McGill & Co. (firm). ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS APPEAL PANEL HEARING Case of Mr Gregor McGill [0044030] and Gregor C. McGill & Co (firm) [004755] Cheshire, WA2 On Friday 13 March 2015 At Warrington Village Urban

More information

Mr Ian Jordan: Professional conduct panel outcome. Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education

Mr Ian Jordan: Professional conduct panel outcome. Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education Mr Ian Jordan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2015 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary

More information

Disciplinary Procedure

Disciplinary Procedure Disciplinary Procedure Human Resources 1 Introduction The University is committed to supporting its staff in carrying out their responsibilities within an environment which encourages productive, safe

More information

APPEARANCES Mr R Earwaker and Mr M Treleaven on behalf of applicant Mr D Jones QC (withdrew before hearing began), respondent did not appear

APPEARANCES Mr R Earwaker and Mr M Treleaven on behalf of applicant Mr D Jones QC (withdrew before hearing began), respondent did not appear NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2010] NZLCDT 17 LCDT 001/10 and 010/09 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE Applicant

More information

The Grampian Valuation Joint Board. Disciplinary Procedure

The Grampian Valuation Joint Board. Disciplinary Procedure The Grampian Valuation Joint Board Disciplinary Procedure 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY 1.1 It is the view of the Grampian Valuation Joint Board that the maintenance of discipline is essential for the effective

More information

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE 1 POLICY STATEMENT & SCOPE

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE 1 POLICY STATEMENT & SCOPE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE 1 POLICY STATEMENT & SCOPE 1.1 The College aims wherever possible to resolve informally matters of potentially unsatisfactory conduct, attendance or poor performance, without resorting

More information

Advice and information for employers of nurses and midwives

Advice and information for employers of nurses and midwives Advice and information for employers of nurses and midwives 1 Contents Introduction 3 The role of the NMC 3 Protecting the public 3 Your responsibilities as an employer 5 Post-registration education and

More information

PLUMBING INDUSTRY LICENSING SCHEME (SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND) DUTIES OF A LICENSED BUSINESS

PLUMBING INDUSTRY LICENSING SCHEME (SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND) DUTIES OF A LICENSED BUSINESS PLUMBING INDUSTRY LICENSING SCHEME (SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND) DUTIES OF A LICENSED BUSINESS January 2010 INTRODUCTION This document has been prepared to provide Licensed Business with a guide to their

More information

NHS WALES. Local Health Boards DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE AND RULES

NHS WALES. Local Health Boards DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE AND RULES NHS WALES Local Health Boards DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE AND RULES 1. POLICY STATEMENT 1.1 It is the policy of Local Health Boards to promote good employment relations between them and their staff. Consequently

More information

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC. XENIDOU, Evangelia Registration No: 84448 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2015 Outcome: Erasure and immediate suspension

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC. XENIDOU, Evangelia Registration No: 84448 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2015 Outcome: Erasure and immediate suspension HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC XENIDOU, Evangelia Registration No: 84448 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2015 Outcome: Erasure and immediate suspension Evangelia XENIDOU, a dentist, registered as of The Lodge,

More information

Document 12. Open Awards Malpractice and Maladministration Policy and Procedures

Document 12. Open Awards Malpractice and Maladministration Policy and Procedures Open Awards Malpractice and Maladministration Policy and Procedures Page 1 of 14 Open Awards Malpractice and Maladministration Policy and Procedures Policy Statement Open Awards is committed to ensuring

More information

ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD. Disciplinary Policy & Procedure

ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD. Disciplinary Policy & Procedure 1. Disciplinary Policy ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD Disciplinary Policy & Procedure 1.1. General The following rules and procedure form part of the statement of written particulars of employment

More information

DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE

DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE Date of Publication: April 2013 Agreed by: Vice Chancellor s Executive March 2013 Page 1 of 13 Policy 1.0 Introduction The purpose of the disciplinary policy and procedure

More information

HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DISCIPLINARY. Date of Policy 1993 Date policy to be reviewed 09/2014

HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DISCIPLINARY. Date of Policy 1993 Date policy to be reviewed 09/2014 HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DISCIPLINARY Date of Policy 1993 Date policy to be reviewed 09/2014 Policy written by SFC/HR Risk Register Ref (s) HR7 Impact Assessed EDG Date Impact assessed 10/2012

More information

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE TEACHING STAFF

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE TEACHING STAFF policies updated/ Disc Proc Teach Staff 300512 1. INTRODUCTION DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE TEACHING STAFF 1.1 Disciplinary rules and procedures are necessary for promoting orderly employment relations as well

More information

Statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions Briefing paper on existing accountability mechanisms

Statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions Briefing paper on existing accountability mechanisms Statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions Briefing paper on existing accountability mechanisms Background In calling for the culture of the NHS to become more open and honest, Robert Francis QC,

More information

Applicant any person who is applying or has applied for registration as a Paralegal;

Applicant any person who is applying or has applied for registration as a Paralegal; PRACTISING CERTI Paralegal Practising Certificate Rules Citation, Commencement and Interpretation These Rules may be cited as the Paralegal Practising Certificate Rules 2015 and come into force on 20th

More information

Otley Town Council. Disciplinary Policy. Date Approved: 17 th February 2014 Revision Date:

Otley Town Council. Disciplinary Policy. Date Approved: 17 th February 2014 Revision Date: Otley Town Council Disciplinary Policy Date Approved: 17 th February 2014 Revision Date: OTLEY TOWN COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY POLICY 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This policy is based on and complies with the 2009 ACAS

More information

THE MORAY COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

THE MORAY COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES THE MORAY COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES THE MORAY COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES 1.0 STATEMENT OF POLICY 1.1 The Council recognises that the maintenance of discipline is essential for the conduct of

More information

Miss Rebecca Lacey: Professional conduct panel outcome. Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education

Miss Rebecca Lacey: Professional conduct panel outcome. Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education Miss Rebecca Lacey: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2016 Contents Contents 2 A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C.

More information

Newcastle University disciplinary procedure

Newcastle University disciplinary procedure Newcastle University disciplinary procedure Contents 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 2. RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION... 3 3. TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES... 3 4. SCHEDULING OF FORMAL MEETINGS AND APPEALS... 3 5. INVESTIGATION...

More information

DISCIPLINARY POLICY. 1. Introduction. 2. Structured support. 3. Formal action process 3.1. Investigations. 4. Notes of the Hearing and Investigation

DISCIPLINARY POLICY. 1. Introduction. 2. Structured support. 3. Formal action process 3.1. Investigations. 4. Notes of the Hearing and Investigation HUMAN RESOURCES DISCIPLINARY POLICY 1. Introduction 2. Structured support 3. Formal action process 3.1. Investigations 4. Notes of the Hearing and Investigation 5. Suspension 6. Grievance 7. Convening

More information