GMC Defence Barristers

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.

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.

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.

In Suresh & Ors v GMC, the Court examined the GMC’s duty of care and Human Rights Act obligations for doctors under investigation.

Tribunals assess witnesses’ credibility and reliability in resolving disputes or when evidence has a significant impact on outcomes.

Is the GMC’s stance justified and what should doctors know when they consider taking part in climate protests.

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?

Research underlines the importance of insight, remediation, and legal representation when determining whether a doctor can return to practise.

When you are contacted by your regulator to inform you that an allegation has been made against you – how should you respond?

Insight and remediation play crucial roles in addressing allegations of sexual misconduct in the medical profession.

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.