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 :). 

Friends and Enemies

After 4 years of wrangling over disputes, I decided to ask the GMC whether we should all approach the courts for a judicial decision on their efforts to mislead. Over the years, I have collected a fair amount of data on the General Medical Council. I am not quite sure why they are hell bent on making enemies out of doctors but there we go. It is part of the GMC's dysfunctional outlook on life. 

So I have offered them as follows

1. To settle the dispute on whether I resigned or was fired during their pointless investigation of me in 2007. As I have paperwork showing I was fired, I often wonder what the GMC will wave in court. Perhaps they will roll into court with yet another consultant who is willing to fabricate evidence for them. 

2. The GMC told a number of people under FOIA that it is not up to the doctor under investigation to inform their Trust of said investigation - it was up to the GMC. In my case though, the GMC offered a dastardly message to the Trust. Apparently, I was under an obligation to inform the Trust of the 2007 at the start of the investigation. I showed the GMC the memo from the Trust. The GMC denied ever stating it but had cleverly lost the telephone memo. All telephone memos existed for the investigation bar that one. They then attempted to mislead me through email. Its amazing what they say to other people though. The fact is there was no obligation on me to inform the Trust. The GMC had already informed them 4 days before I knew about the investigation - afterall the Trust had contacted the GMC to find out what my "investigatory status was". The GMC denies that my name disappeared from the Register. It did though disappear and this was the reason for the Trust contact with the GMC. The GMC continues to shimmy around this subject. 

3. Rule 53 of the Management of Doctors Guidance. The GMC denies that the Medical Director in my case was responsible for the delegated managerial tasks conducted in his name. The rule states quite the opposite. This is really about William Monteiro citing that I had resigned when the paperwork showed I had been fired. He didn't just cite it anywhere - he cited it in court. That is where times become a little precarious for all concerned.

I felt the need to document the above. It is only because no one fully realises the utter stupidity of the GMC. These are people who are supposed to protect patients yet they find it difficult to be honest in three points. Each point above is evidenced to the hilt. The GMC have now continued this charade for four years. I wonder how long they plan on continuing this game of hide and seek for. It is coming to a point where I feel that the three disputes should be resolved by a judge. Don't get me wrong - I like playing hide and seek but after a while, its time to do other things in life. 

In the end, the GMC keeps making its own enemies by being obstructive. Each day another doctor is treated with contempt. I am not quite sure why they cannot be honest, fair and reasonable. It doesn't hurt to be nice. Afterall, bar the fact the GMC hates the ground I walk on, what do they achieve by being obstructive. More doctors start to observe them and say " hey, is this what we are paying for"? The GMC is plagued at present with doctors suing them at the Employment Tribunals. Perhaps if the GMC were reasonable, so many of us would not be challenging them. 

My reason for challenging the GMC is four fold

1. I want to demonstrate how obstructive and unreasonable they are.

2. I want to demonstrate the fact that their negligence costs livelihoods and patient lives. 

3. I am unable to work in the NHS. The GMC might say it is no loss to them. It is though a loss to members of the public who had no objections to me working. So while, the NHS whines about doctors who cannot speak English, at least 5 of my friends and I are ex-communicated out of the NHS for no particular reason. The GMC remains indifferent to our livelihoods despite the profession of medicine being a civil right. 

4. The GMC must be legitimately criticized and challenged to improve it for generations to come. This is why there must be equality of standards, transparency, honesty and decency within our regulatory body. 

Obstruction

One of the main problems with the General Medical Council is their personality dysfunction. It is an organisational trait. The General Medical Council have never been very helpful. The only exception is Mark Ellen mellen@gmc-uk.org of the Information Team. Apart from that, those of us who have had the misfortune of dealing with the GMC, also have to tolerate the sheer shameless obstructive behaviour. Their legal team is masterful at this art. You ask them a question, they either answer something else or hope you have forgotten the original question asked. This technique is really done to make matters lengthier and more complex. Take the resignation/fired issue. It is a relatively simple issue yet the General Medical Council continue to stir it in their cauldron in many forms about 4 years later. 

The GMC has no insight into its failings. This is why it never improves. It spends its life judging others yet fail miserably to address its own flaws of which they have many. It is quite sad that they have this trait because if they were able to listen, address concerns and improve, they would be a excellent regulatory body. Anyhow, they never did accept that Shipman was their fault. They will never accept that their procedures are much like the totalitarian regime. If anyone gets justice, its purely accidental. The GMC fails to set an example to others. They fail to garner respect or assist those in need. This is why it is a failing regulatory body. It has failed the public and good doctors. Unfortunately, it continues to rule supreme untouched by the criticisms and justified challenges by many doctors and patients.