GMC investigations and MPTS hearings - case studies

GMC investigations

Our lawyers acted for a doctor accused of dishonesty following allegations of submitting inaccurate timesheets. Written submissions were made to the case examiners, dealing with evidential issues and matters concerning our client’s fitness to practise. Following this, the GMC proposed to conclude the case with a warning. Our client did not wish to accept a warning and further written submissions were made. These were accepted by the case examiners and the case was closed with advice.

Our lawyers acted for a doctor referred to the GMC in relation to several allegations ranging from poor clinical performance to dishonesty. We made detailed written submissions at the Rule 7 Stage maintaining that there was no realistic prospect of a finding that our client’s fitness to practise was impaired. The case examiners concluded the case with no further action.

Our lawyers acted for a doctor facing investigation following a complaint by a private patient regarding an elective cosmetic procedure. The GMC instructed an expert witness who was highly critical of our client. We made detailed submissions which challenged the expert's findings. Following this the investigation was closed with no further action.

Our lawyers represented a doctor facing multiple complaints of financial misconduct and dishonesty. We represented our client at a number of Interim Orders Panel hearings and a meeting at the GMC’s offices to discuss the allegations. Following this, written submissions were made at the Rule 7 stage which resulted in the allegations of dishonesty being withdrawn. The case was concluded with a warning.

Our lawyers acted for a doctor referred to the GMC following a serious clinical error which contributed to the death of a patient. Our client accepted having made a diagnostic error and made full and frank admissions to the GMC. Detailed written submissions were made at the Rule 7 stage setting out our client’s reflection on the incident and outlining a programme of training which had been completed in order to remediate matters. The case was concluded with a warning.   

Our lawyers advised a doctor facing investigation following an application for specialist registration. It was alleged that aspects of the application were dishonest. We assisted our client in preparing a detailed response at the outset of the investigation which clarified the issues which had been raised. The investigation was closed by the GMC and no action was taken against our client.

Our lawyers acted for a doctor facing investigation by the GMC following a complaint from a private patient. The complaint concerned inadequate aftercare following a private cosmetic surgical procedure. We represented our client at an Interim Orders Panel hearing which resulted in no order being imposed. Following this the investigation was concluded with no further action on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that our client’s fitness to practise was impaired.

MPTS hearings

We acted for a doctor referred to a fitness to practice hearing before the MPTS in relation to a number of allegations. These included competence allegations, issues with regard to communications with colleagues and allegations of dishonesty. Some of the allegations were admitted but most were denied. The allegations which were denied were successfully defended at the hearing. This included allegations of dishonesty. Detailed mitigation was presented in relation to those allegations which were admitted. The Tribunal found that our client’s fitness to practise was not impaired and as such no action was taken.

We acted for a doctor who was referred to the MPTS in relation to a serious clinical incident which occurred during a surgical procedure. Our client admitted the allegations and we presented extensive evidence of reflection and remediation. The Tribunal found that our client’s fitness to practise was not impaired and no action was taken.

We acted for a doctor referred to the MPTS in relation to allegations of serious misconduct and allegations arising out of a serious clinical incident. The GMC also alleged that our client had acted dishonestly in relation to a number of matters. The allegations relating to clinical matters were, for the most part, admitted. The allegations of dishonesty were denied and were successfully defended at the hearing. Our client was made the subject of a conditions of practice order in relation to the clinical matters which had been admitted.

We acted for a doctor who was referred to the MPTS following convictions for a number of serious criminal convictions. Our client admitted that their fitness to practise was currently impaired in light of those convictions and the focus of the hearing was on the question of sanction. Detailed evidence of mitigation and reflection was prepared and provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not make an order of erasure and instead imposed a period of suspension. This suspension was subsequently reviewed by the MPTS and our client was permitted to return to unrestricted practice.

Our lawyers acted for a doctor in relation to an application for restoration to the Medical Register. Our client had been erased at an earlier hearing following findings of dishonesty. We assisted our client in the preparation of a detailed reflective statement and supporting documents. The Tribunal was satisfied that our client had developed full insight and the application for restoration was granted.

Under investigation by GMC

If you are under investigation by the General Medical Council or you have been referred to a hearing before the MPTS, please contact our specialist lawyers without delay either by calling us on 0161 696 6250 or by completing our online enquiry form.