Simon Gurney ensures Consultant is cleared of all wrongdoing after 5 week GMC fitness to practise hearing

On 15th December, following a hearing lasting over 5 weeks, Dr B, a Consultant Ophthalmologist and owner of several private hospitals, left the GMC’s hearing centre in Manchester with his name cleared and reputation restored, after a Fitness to Practise Panel found all the allegations against him not proven and, consequently, found that he was fit to practise as a medical practitioner.

Dr B was represented by Simon Gurney, instructed by Paul Grant of BSG Solicitors, London.

After the decision, Dr B said “I would highly recommend Mr Gurney to anyone facing serious and complicated proceedings before the GMC or indeed any medical and/or regulatory body and, in fact, in relation to any matter with which Mr Gurney may be able to assist. Because, if he will take your case, you can expect the best possible outcome.”

As to the Panel clearing his name, Dr B said it was “a result which I could not really have hoped for given the amount of time and effort that had been put in to the case against me by the GMC. I firmly believe this outcome was largely down to the skill and efforts of Mr Gurney on my behalf.”

He said “I now have my life and profession back in my control. I am indebted to Simon”

Dr B explained that he had first encountered Simon when he appeared on behalf of a colleague before the High Court. Dr B said “Simon was very thorough in preparing for the case and his presentation simply brilliant.”

Dr B was unhappy with the barrister who was then representing him, so he asked his Solicitors to instruct Simon to take over his case. Simon was instructed on behalf of Dr B in September 2014.

Dr B said: “ As soon as Simon took the case he got to grips with the facts and advised me where I needed to focus my efforts to ensure a good outcome. From there on he seemed to spend much more time on my case than I expected him to and was always available by e-mail and in conference when the need arose.”

Over the year that followed Simon was responsible for devising the best strategy to adopt to respond to the allegations, which were varied and numerous, some dating back as far as 2009. There were 82 factual allegations referred to the Panel. They included allegations of the most serious kind: that Dr B had given false evidence and fabricated evidence before a previous regulatory panel; had defrauded a bank in relation to a commercial mortgage; had defrauded an insurance company in the provision of insurance for one of his hospitals; had failed to ensure that one of his hospitals provided clinical care in accordance with the statutory requirements; and had intimidated a witness in the proceedings.

Simon appeared in several case management hearings and challenged the GMC’s approach to disclosure of digital material in the case. He pursued disclosure requests with tenacity and was ultimately successful in securing an order from the MPTS Case Manager requiring the GMC to disclose the material that Dr B and his Solicitors had been seeking for several years.

Dr B said “Simon’s judgement at various stages was brilliant and proved to be right at every step.”

The protracted investigation into Dr B spanned nearly 5 years. By the time that Simon became involved, Dr B had been suspended from practice for several years. In May 2015 Simon opposed the GMC’s application in the High Court to extend the interim suspension order. The Judge was persuaded that it would be disproportionate to extend the order, meaning that Dr B was no longer suspended and was able to return to practise pending his final hearing.

During the final hearing in November, Simon pursued an application that the MPTS Panel recuse itself because of its exposure to prejudicial material. The Panel refused the application, insisting that it was able to hear the case fairly. Simon drafted grounds for judicial review to challenge the decision. Permission was granted by the High Court, following which the Panel recused itself in the interests of justice.

Dr B said “the quality of Simon’s [written] submissions for the judicial review were of such a high level that the Judge guided the GMC and the Panel towards ‘recusal’ without the need for a hearing at the Court.”

Dr B said: “I cannot express how impressed I was with the way Mr Gurney dealt with all aspects of my case right up to the final substantial hearing where detailed cross examination of witnesses including expert witnesses was required.”

Following his cross-examination of one of the GMC’s witnesses, the GMC withdrew a number of the allegations from the Panel. The remaining contested allegations were found not proven by the Panel at the end of the case and, as a result, Dr B’s fitness to practise was found not to be impaired and, further, that there was no need to impose a warning upon him.

Simon specialises in the law concerning professional discipline and regulation. He has experience representing police officers, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social workers and other professionals before their regulatory tribunals and the higher courts. He is an experienced ‘direct access’ barrister, meaning he can accept instructions from a client without the need for a solicitor. He is also able, where necessary, to recommend experienced solicitors for clients who require assistance with litigation. If you find yourself in need of advice or representation concerning such matters please contact David Wright in Chambers on 0161 832 5701 or dwright@lincolnhousechambers.com who will be able to discuss your needs and instruct Simon accordingly.