Jump to content


GMC duty of care of patient safety vs discrimination / constructive dismissal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1933 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I suffered a hate crime which was played out as harassment for a month which left me sleep deprived and depressed such that I had extreme anxiety that became paranoia.

 

I was aware of my dysfunctional state and took myself to the hospital 3 x wherecat the final visit I was labelled as psychotic. I made the GMC aware despite the fact I wasn’t working before during or after this harassment. The GMC went into overdrive and ignored key facts of the triggering event, my awareness, and not working, and held a tribunal 6 months later from which date these conditions were put in place. Ordinarily they are enforced for 12-18mths from the time of the event but that wasn’t taken into account.

 

The outcome of the hearing was to make it publicly known that I had mental health issues and as such had conditions defined that would need to be arranged if I were to be employed in the capacity as a dr. It was in a way to monitor my behaviour and have somebody aware of what had happened and spot early signs of a relapse.

 

The major problem was that I was to declare my medical history to a prospective employer BEFORE the short-listing process, and have a GMC Psychiatrist approve of the medical job chosen to apply for first. The prospects of an employer taken on a person with a history of mental health issues, returning to work part-time and needing to put in place more than 4 pages of listed measures obviously made me effectively unemployable.

 

Can’t prove there are any prejudices at play here. I really don’t know where to turn at this moment as having paid a barrister to represent me at that employment tribunal the issues I was most concerned about weren’t addressed namely early disclosure and undertaking period.

 

The outcome of being subjected to an 18 month that effectively was 24 month period of ‘undertakings’ has meant I have no career left, no money, debts, poor self-esteem at the age of 50. Has the’GMC acted lawfully?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you bring any claim regarding Judicially Reviewing the decision of the GMC? Were you not advised to do so? (do not set out any legal advice obviously). Was the decision of the ET within the last six weeks? (an EAT Appeal may, and I stress may, be possible)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you weren't working before, during, or after all this happened, what is your claim to an employment tribunal? Unless you are or were an employee of the GMC then no employment tribunal had jurisdiction over their decisions on fitness to practice.

 

If it is considered that any prospective employer might need to put in place a large range of protections for patients if you are to be allowed to practice, isn't the issue the safety of patients and their rights, not your "right" to be employed - because there isn't a right to be employed. Patient safety for patients is not discrimination against you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just realised that this is not an employment tribunal - it is a GMC tribunal. This is a highly specialised area of law, and legal advice is a necessary. Are you not a member of the BMA - they usually offer legal representation to medical doctors on such matters. Appeal is to the High Court, but the whole process is a statutory requirement for the protection of patients and the GMC do not make determinations lightly. The requirement to publish their findings is a legal matter, so they haven't "made it public" but done what the law requires them to do.

 

So the answer is yes, the GMC have acted lawfully, but if you disagree with their decision you must appeal to the High Court within 28 days, as outlined in the letter of notification from the GMC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just realised that this is not an employment tribunal - it is a GMC tribunal. This is a highly specialised area of law, and legal advice is a necessary. Are you not a member of the BMA - they usually offer legal representation to medical doctors on such matters. Appeal is to the High Court, but the whole process is a statutory requirement for the protection of patients and the GMC do not make determinations lightly. The requirement to publish their findings is a legal matter, so they haven't "made it public" but done what the law requires them to do.

 

I fully agree with Sangie, BMA (or your Trades Union, if a member of another), ideally as a route to specialist legal advice, which is essential but unlikely to come cheaply if you aren't in a union and would have to pay "out of pocket'.

 

So the answer is yes, the GMC have acted lawfully, but if you disagree with their decision you must appeal to the High Court within 28 days, as outlined in the letter of notification from the GMC.

 

There are further advantages to using a union / professional legal advisers.

A) They can asses your best way forward and likelihood of success, advising you on these,

B) They can put your case forward for you, and so if one of the themes is "restrictions / conditions disproportionate to your illness", THEY are arguing this on your behalf, ideally with expert witness support, rather than the GMC seeing it as "you arguing".

I suspect it is essential you are seen to be complying with the psychiatrist the GMC requires ; the last thing you want is them suggesting "lack of insight or poor compliance" as a route to them extending the scope or duration of any restrictions .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for giving me your opinion on the matter and satisfying my doubts as to whether the GMC behaved lawfully.

 

I wasn’t told about a judiciial review no. I agree that patient safety is tantamount and surpases my right to work. It’s the fact that it’s not necessary to know about the implications on my employment until after being shortlisted.

Once again, thanks.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for giving me your opinion on the matter and satisfying my doubts as to whether the GMC behaved lawfully.

 

I wasn’t told about a judiciial review no. I agree that patient safety is tantamount and surpases my right to work. It’s the fact that it’s not necessary to know about the implications on my employment until after being shortlisted.

Once again, thanks.

Regards

That is because the process is not a judicial review, but an appeal. However, being realistic, I think you are being overly optimistic about the position of potential employers. If you don't want them to know about this until after shortlisting, you are probably wasting your time and theirs. They'll either want to consider you from the outset. Or not. If you rock up after shortlist with a load of unexpected issues as a candidate, then they'll not be impressed and they'll likely not want you anyway. At least this way they know what they are getting - if you make the shortlist, you do so on your own merit and know that you at least stand some chance of the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...