(General Medical Council) The appellant appealed a finding of serious professional misconduct and his suspension from the medical register for twelve months. Over a nine day period despite prompts from the son, a daughter and two other health care professionals, the appellant failed to ensure that the patient received suitable or prompt medical attention. The patient was eventually admitted to hospital by the emergency services and found to be suffering from a fractured neck of the left femur. He claimed that a witness had been shown to have not told the truth and this his whole evidence should have been rejected.
Held: The committee had heard the witness and taken only part of his evidence as tru. They were not under a duty to reject it all. There was one finding in an entire career, and the board were not satisfied that the committee had followed the correct reasoning. The finding of serious professional misconduct could not be supported.
Judges:
Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Sir Philip Otton
Citations:
[2003] UKPC 33
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Roylance v The General Medical Council (No 2) PC 24-Mar-1999
(Medical Act 1983) Dr Roylance was the chief executive of a hospital in which there had been excessive mortality rates of children who underwent cardiac surgery and had failed to take steps to deal with the problem.
Held: A doctor who carried . .
Cited – Doughty v General Dental Council PC 1988
The court summarised the characteristics of actions which would constitute serious professional misconduct. . .
Cited – Dr Narasinga Mukunda Rao vThe General Medical Council PC 9-Dec-2002
PC (The Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC) The misconduct was a single incident. There was undoubted negligence but something more was required to constitute serious professional misconduct and to attach . .
Cited by:
Distinguished – Regina (on the Application of Jennifer Campbell) v The General Medical Council CA 11-Mar-2005
The Council complained that when assessing disciplinary charges against the doctor, they had taken into account when looking at his guilt, his professional reputation.
Held: A doctor’s reputation was relevant only when considering any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.180770