GMC Defence Barristers
Blog & NewsThe latest news on everything GMC related and blog posts from GMC Defence Barrister Stephen McCaffrey.
Doctor avoids erasure
Our client, a doctor, has avoided erasure in a complicated case involving expert evidence, unusual internal processes and integrity allegations.
Interim Orders in Professional Regulation
Interim orders are a crucial regulatory tool used early in fitness to practise investigations but with potentially significant impacts on healthcare professionals’ practice, careers, and personal well-being.
Does remediation matter in fitness to practise?
We look at the importance of remediation in fitness to practise, what remediation means and how it can impact on the outcome of an investigation or hearing.
GMC’s duty of care. Is legal representation the answer?
The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear. We look at the value of legal representation to assist doctors with the stress and anxiety associated with investigations.
Does the GMC have a duty of care to doctors under investigation?
In Suresh & Ors v GMC, the Court examined the GMC’s duty of care and Human Rights Act obligations for doctors under investigation.
Successful GMC restoration for our client
With representation from Kings View Chambers, our client’s application for registration was successful on first attempt.
Credibility & Reliability of Witness’ evidence in Fitness to Practise Hearings
Tribunals assess witnesses’ credibility and reliability in resolving disputes or when evidence has a significant impact on outcomes.
Doctor able to practice unrestricted
With representation from Kings View Chambers, a fitness to practise tribunal made a finding of no impairment leaving our client to practice unrestricted.
Doctors taking part in Climate Protests – Fitness to Practise Considerations
Is the GMC’s stance justified and what should doctors know when they consider taking part in climate protests.
What’s your view of Physician Associates?
Are they simply a cost effective way of helping to provide a service where there are issues in recruitment of doctors or are they part and parcel of essential reforms in an under pressure, underfunded NHS?
Successful GMC Restoration Applications: What makes the Difference?
Research underlines the importance of insight, remediation, and legal representation when determining whether a doctor can return to practise.
Responding to Fitness to Practise Allegations – 10 Things to Consider
When you are contacted by your regulator to inform you that an allegation has been made against you – how should you respond?
Sexual misconduct and doctors – A brief Overview
Insight and remediation play crucial roles in addressing allegations of sexual misconduct in the medical profession.
The importance of honesty and integrity – Ali v GMC
The court again highlighted that dishonesty undermines trust in the medical profession, which is crucial for patient safety and public confidence.
Doctor free to practice without restriction
Our client faced a number of allegations but with our representation, their fitness to practise was not found impaired and they are free to practice without restriction.
Sexual Misconduct & Fitness to Practise
This type of behaviour is seen as particularly serious by regulators and, more often than not, result in the most severe sanctions.
GMC Health Assessments – What doctors need to know
We look at GMC health assessments, what doctors can expect from these assessments, and the value of legal representation.
“Wait and See” – Is it the right fitness to practise defence strategy?
When faced with a fitness to practise investigation, should health care professionals “wait and see” or does constructive engagement make a difference?
Responding to GMC concerns – Insight and Remediation
We look specifically at insight and remediation and how both of these can lead to better outcomes for doctors.
What does the Good Medical Practice say about Honesty & Doctors?
What the GMP says about honesty & the consequences for doctors whose fitness to practise is found impaired following allegations of dishonesty?
What the GMC means by Fitness to Practise – Posing a Risk to Public Protection
We look at the criteria the GMC & MPTS decision makers will use to decide if doctors pose a risk to public protection.
The GMC will be legally represented – you should too!
At numerous stages in the GMC’s fitness to practise investigation process, the GMC will be legally represented by an experienced solicitor or barrister.
The GMC’s “Realistic Prospect Test” & why it matters
The “realistic prospect” test will apply to allegations & the question whether the facts would demonstrate a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired.
When is a doctor’s history relevant to a GMC fitness to practise investigation?
Under certain circumstances, the GMC can take into account a doctor’s history even where previous cases resulted in no regulatory action.
Doctors facing allegations of violence & dishonesty
The GMC has changed its guidance for allegations of dishonesty and violence that might not impact on public safety. We look at the guidance and the implications for doctors.
Why the right strategy matters in GMC fitness to practise investigations
GMC fitness to practise investigations and hearing are legalistic and complex. Legal advice is crucially important is agreeing the right strategy to ensure the best outcomes for doctors.
What should I do if I receive notification that I am being investigated by the GMC?
It is important that doctors carefully consider their response when they are notified of a GMC investigation. We look why this is important and what doctors should do.
Is your registration worth the gamble?
Your registration is more than just the ability to practise – it is also your career and reputation. Is it worth a gamble?
Working Under Pressure – How Doctors can reduce the risk of GMC referrals
GMC referrals are unfortunately an occupational hazard for doctors and doctors should expect to be referred to the GMC at some point in their career.
Insight, Remediation and Sanctions
Guidance must not be “slavishly” followed, and regulatory decisions must be made based on the individual merits of the case – High Court.