GMC " A Medical Director isn't responsible for the actions of his/her subordinates"

The last episode of the GMC Soap can be read here. It all revolves around the question created by Mark Shaw QC. Was I fired or did I resign from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust? The paperwork show that beyond reasonable doubt, I was fired. Mark Shaw QC with his witnesses in tow say something else. On of the witnesses was Dr William Monteiro. The story continues here....

On January 2011, the General Medical Council ruled that Dr Steve Choong, Ex Medical Director, Ex Plab Examiner, Ex GMC Panelist was not responsible for the actions of Dr William Monteiro, Clinical Lead at Worcestershire Mental Health Trust. To recap, counsel for the GMC, Mr Mark Shaw QC decided to take an adjournment mid case to obtain a statement from William Monteiro. This is called "case fixing" for those who are not familiar with legal tactics. This means, the GMC invents a position then creates the evidence to fit said position. Having done so, Shaw advertised the statement all around the courts. It should be noted that the GMC kept throwing the Choong complaint out repeatedly until R v GMC Ex Parte Pal was used to push it through the investigation. Having done so, the GMC were weaving another argument to screen it out. The decision isn't unexpected but the politics involved is superbly interesting. 

The buck passing was detailed by the Libertarian blog sometime ago. It was in the GMC's interest to propagate the idea that I had resigned. They needed to win the judicial review by pulling the wool over the judges eyes. On of their arguments to deny the case a remedy was the fact it was "academic". To them, a allegation of "resignation" would make the case "academic". Of course, whatever the GMC say, fiction on their part cannot become fact.  The fact that there was no resignation letter or evidence of resignation was  interesting. The fact that a Tribunal Chairman stated that the end of the contracted originated from the Trust was another interesting fact.

At the time of the case, Choong had been a GMC panelist and much much more. During the GMC's investigation of him, he kept dropping one post after another. I can of course understand why the GMC would wish to save one of their own. It is though the manner in which they do it that amuses me. The GMC assumes that they are far far more intelligent than us mere mortals. They look at themselves in the mirror and snarl " Mirror Mirror on the Wall, who is the most intelligent one of them all". Their lawyers shout " Us, Us, Us". Of course, life is never as simple for those who spend more time obstructing the truth than upholding it. 

It should be noted that there was evidence of discussions between Steve Choong, William Monteiro and Human Resources. Each had gone through the paperwork of the human resources file as admitted by documentation. The file by the way has now been  cleverly disposed of by the Trust :). This has apparently happened by accident.  Rather convenient :). 

Further more, letters had been copied to Steve Choong. Choong made no efforts to correct the position propagated by the Trust and Monteiro within court documents. Either I had resigned or I was fired. If I had resigned, where were the documents to prove this? No documents were available.   Despite all this evidence, Choong insisted that he should not be held responsible for the statement made by Dr William Monteiro [according to Monteiro, this was done with the consent of the Trust]. The GMC subsequently believed their ex panelist. 

Of course, we have always known that the GMC uses special tests for issues related to me. The above case is a further example of a special test. Despite common knowledge that all Medical Directors are responsible for their subordinates [ GMC v Roylance], the GMC ruled that this special medical director was not responsible for the conduct of those he was in charge of. 

I have recently pointed the GMC to Rule 53 of the Doctors and Managers Guidance. . This is what the guidance states 

"53. When you delegate your managerial responsibilities you must be sure that the person to whom you delegate is competent to do what is asked of them and has the necessary information, authority and resources. You will still be responsible for the overall management of the tasks you have delegated"

As the GMC admitted that Dr Choong did not supervise Dr Monteiro, a new complaint was thrown back into the General Medical Council so they could acutely be aware of their own stupidity. The GMC's legal team has no answer to the Rule 53 issue especially the last line. There is a lot of hot air floating around the General Medical Council at present :). 


  1. If it is the William Monteiro I think it is;I was Unfortunately one of his Locum Patients in 1997.

    He Diagnosed me as having a An Anti-Social Personality Disorder.In other words-a Psychopath.

    This turned The Hospital Team against me.

    His Long term replacement Considered his Diagnosis of me appropriate but Modified it to Borderline Personality Disorder.

    However as a result of Dr.Monteiro's Opinions I have been probably barred from Inpatient Treatment for Life.

    His Interventions had a devastating effect on myself and my family.

    However since being treated by an Assertive Outreach Psychiatrist in 1998,then another in 2002,and then a Recovery Team Consultant,my Recovery began in 2007 after being put on the medications Quitiapine & Venlafaxine.

    I am now Considered completely Treatable.

    I have now achieved ITQ Level 3 and have obtained both a full Motorcycle Licence and a full Manual Car Driving Licence.

    I am about to start Voluntary Work and am on the waiting list for Jobclub.

    Ironic really considering Dr.W.Monteiro Considered that the most suitable place for me was in a Long Term prison.

    Alot of the patients he considered Treatable are still in Mental Hospitals.

    I fully Commend your work Dr.Pal.

    In this Particular case you have caught a big and very bad fish.

  2. Its really sad to read the whole story and how the doctors are misusing their authority. There is a hope that GMC revalidation services will prove fruitful in removing these bad fish from the pond.

  3. I was his patient. He made me repeat back to him that I did not need my Adhd meds. Now says in my notes that I said I do not need them. Neither was I told I was discharged as a patient. Neither was my go. Told I had anxiety. When I complained about monitor I was told I was the issue and they not treat adult adhd.