GMC Defence Barristers

The court again highlighted that dishonesty undermines trust in the medical profession, which is crucial for patient safety and public confidence.

This type of behaviour is seen as particularly serious by regulators and, more often than not, result in the most severe sanctions.

We look at GMC health assessments, what doctors can expect from these assessments, and the value of legal representation.

When faced with a fitness to practise investigation, should health care professionals “wait and see” or does constructive engagement make a difference?

We look specifically at insight and remediation and how both of these can lead to better outcomes for doctors.

What the GMP says about honesty & the consequences for doctors whose fitness to practise is found impaired following allegations of dishonesty?

We look at the criteria the GMC & MPTS decision makers will use to decide if doctors pose a risk to public protection.

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 “realistic prospect” test will apply to allegations & the question whether the facts would demonstrate a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired.

Under certain circumstances, the GMC can take into account a doctor’s history even where previous cases resulted in no regulatory action.

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.

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.

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.

Your registration is more than just the ability to practise – it is also your career and reputation. Is it worth a gamble?

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.

Guidance must not be “slavishly” followed, and regulatory decisions must be made based on the individual merits of the case – High Court.

Understanding the GMC’s fitness to practise investigation process is key to meaningful engagement which, in turn, is key to better outcomes for doctors.

Doctors who do not comply with MPTS Rules and case management directions risk increased adverse outcomes and costs awarded against them.

What difference does legal representation really make in fitness to practise proceedings?

Doctors can appeal GMC decisions relating to registration, licensing, restoration and revalidation, but legal advice is key to good outcomes.

GMC Interim Sanctions – Overview A General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practise investigations can take many months, if not years.  Whilst doctors could continue to work unrestricted during a GMC investigation, they could be referred to an Interim Orders Tribunal...

The General Medical Council (GMC) placed specific emphasis on its “zero tolerance of sexual harassment” in the updated Good medical practice that, for the first time, includes a “clear definition of what constitutes it and an expectation that doctors who see such...

The GMC has published the updated version of the Good Medical Practice. We look at the changes and what they mean for doctors.

A recent case serves as an important reminder to all doctors to ensure they maintain appropriate professional boundaries with patients at all times.

Contact from the GMC can be distressing for doctors and there are important things doctors should do when they receive correspondence from the GMC.

GMC fitness to practise investigations can take years, to conclude. Can you afford to not work, or work under restrictions, during this time?

Doctors under investigation may quickly find the GMC is far less concerned about protecting doctors highlighting the value of legal advice.

Does evidence of insight and remediation really make a difference before a Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal (MPT)?