Rogue Dean AlertIn May 2002, Dr David Graham, the Post Graduate Medical Dean for Mersey, was appointed by the Health Minister as the 'appraisal tsar'. The natural assumption is that David Graham should be able to process data in accordance to the Data Protection Act 1998. Afterall, appraisal involves dealing with doctor's data. The decision of the Information Commissioner can be read below. It essentially shows that Dr Graham liked to conceal material from Sushant Varma. This is a characteristic of David Graham, he skulks around concealing material of his dealings. Sushant though has fought these issues for about 6 years. He has won each complaint at the Information Commissioner and managed to obtain his data by sheer determination.
The GMC have struck Sushant off the Register. Is he going to be yet another forgotten face? A doctor we all forget, mislay and we get on with our lives? Of course, he is. That is because no one gives a damn about the violation of human rights in Dr Varma's case. The denial of legal representation by the GMC, the denial of documentation to the panel and we could go on, the negligent advice from the MDDUS, the fact that both his lawyers walked out on him mid hearing. The fact that Clueless Blueglass [Professor] tried to pull a fast one at the GMC. The fact that Dr Umesh Prabhu sold him out to Halton NHS Trust when Sushant approached him for help. Umesh, the man who sucks up the establishment, who plays with those in high places so he can get brownie points totted up. The fact remains, he is an Indian with a very bad Indian accent, he is also unable to spell and he doesn't even recognise a conflict of interest when it stares him right in the face. He professes to be the patient's friend by sitting on the AVMA panel while cosying up by PACA. No doubt he has smarmed up to David Graham like most gutless senior cufflinked Indian consultants do.
There is a story I heard on radio once. It was about a pet snake who started sidling up and stretching out next to its owner. It had not eaten for about 3 days. She took it to the vet and the vet said " Ah, that would be because he is sizing you up to eat you". And that is what Umesh reminds me of. He is the sort of man who will sidle up to anyone or sell anyone out if it is of an advantage to him.
Anyway, that was a side issue I could not resist :). Back to David Graham :-
The doctor who Dr Graham supported into a good career structure is the lady who killed a patient with potassium. Yes, Dr Shamala Rajalingam is currently working in the NHS and was not taken down the conduct procedures at the GMC. Aren't all the patients lucky? ! Bet they are counting their lucky stars at having Shamala on the floor treating them. I know there will be all those nice doctors rallying around this girl and telling us all that it was " one off " and all she needed was " education" and " support". Sure, my heart bleeds for her.
Well, every doctor after the 5th year knows that potassium should not be injected neatly. She was treated with kid gloves while Dr Varma was dragged through the hallowed halls of the GMC. Is this consistency in decision making?!
Indeed, I believe I have been subjected to more GMC conduct investigations then the doctor above just for writing on a website. Anyway, we must all be quiet about this because that is what we do as doctors - be quiet and allow things to happen around us.
According to Dr Graham, killing a patient is less serious than CV anomalies in the personal interests section. Dr Graham does not like to talk about this and indeed starts to get edgy when this subject is brought up. That is not the only doctor Graham overlooked, there were these doctors. These doctors neglected a diabetic patient.Graham's shortsighted and ultimate protection for these doctors did not help matters because Mike McNicholas [ patient's relative] persevered and got the lying little toads into the General Medical Council. A Health Service Ombudsman's report into Miss McNicholas' treatment concluded she "almost certainly" died because of a series of medical mistakes. David Graham though protected these doctors for at least 10 years.
Dr David Graham was also instrumental in causing Amir Khan to face charges at the GMC because Amir challenged Mersey Deanery. So lets see, Mersey Deanery put Amir Khan through 3-4 years of hell while Shamala Ragilingham was simply allowed to go back to work.
Amir and Sushant did not compromise patient care. They faced the GMC. The four or more doctors who did compromise patient care are yet to face the General Medical Council. The General Medical Council took almost a decade to take the cases of Gerry Murphy et al up. That is because patient deaths come secondary at the GMC. The only doctors they are interested in are those who rebel against the profession.
Anyway, the material below is the document from the Information Commissioner. Dr David Graham was found guilty of breaching the Data Protection Act. This is listed here for the use of other doctors. Do remember that David Graham is Revalidation Tsar - and will be dealing with thousands of doctors data :). Aren't all of you lucky bunnies :).
By the way, David Graham knows about me. I have collected his data for years. There is of course more to come because the Dark Lord has many skeletons in his closets including the ones in his personal life.
Dr David Graham of course was instrumental in destroying the career of Dr Sushant Varma a pre-registration house officer at North Cheshire NHS Trust. He wrote to his mate "Finlay" [ Scott] of the GMC who he is on first named terms with to seek advice on Sushant. We ought to say that Sushant Varma was yet another doctor banned from the Doctors Only Forum. I suspect only terrorists are allowed full access :).
The GMC have struck Sushant off the Register. Is he going to be yet another forgotten face? A doctor we all forget, mislay and we get on with our lives? Of course, he is. That is because no one gives a damn about the violation of human rights in Dr Varma's case. The denial of legal representation by the GMC, the denial of documentation to the panel and we could go on, the negligent advice from the MDDUS, the fact that both his lawyers walked out on him mid hearing. The fact that Clueless Blueglass [Professor] tried to pull a fast one at the GMC. The fact that Dr Umesh Prabhu sold him out to Halton NHS Trust when Sushant approached him for help. Umesh, the man who sucks up the establishment, who plays with those in high places so he can get brownie points totted up. The fact remains, he is an Indian with a very bad Indian accent, he is also unable to spell and he doesn't even recognise a conflict of interest when it stares him right in the face. He professes to be the patient's friend by sitting on the AVMA panel while cosying up by PACA. No doubt he has smarmed up to David Graham like most gutless senior cufflinked Indian consultants do.
There is a story I heard on radio once. It was about a pet snake who started sidling up and stretching out next to its owner. It had not eaten for about 3 days. She took it to the vet and the vet said " Ah, that would be because he is sizing you up to eat you". And that is what Umesh reminds me of. He is the sort of man who will sidle up to anyone or sell anyone out if it is of an advantage to him.
Anyway, that was a side issue I could not resist :). Back to David Graham :-
The doctor who Dr Graham supported into a good career structure is the lady who killed a patient with potassium. Yes, Dr Shamala Rajalingam is currently working in the NHS and was not taken down the conduct procedures at the GMC. Aren't all the patients lucky? ! Bet they are counting their lucky stars at having Shamala on the floor treating them. I know there will be all those nice doctors rallying around this girl and telling us all that it was " one off " and all she needed was " education" and " support". Sure, my heart bleeds for her.
Well, every doctor after the 5th year knows that potassium should not be injected neatly. She was treated with kid gloves while Dr Varma was dragged through the hallowed halls of the GMC. Is this consistency in decision making?!
Indeed, I believe I have been subjected to more GMC conduct investigations then the doctor above just for writing on a website. Anyway, we must all be quiet about this because that is what we do as doctors - be quiet and allow things to happen around us.
According to Dr Graham, killing a patient is less serious than CV anomalies in the personal interests section. Dr Graham does not like to talk about this and indeed starts to get edgy when this subject is brought up. That is not the only doctor Graham overlooked, there were these doctors. These doctors neglected a diabetic patient.Graham's shortsighted and ultimate protection for these doctors did not help matters because Mike McNicholas [ patient's relative] persevered and got the lying little toads into the General Medical Council. A Health Service Ombudsman's report into Miss McNicholas' treatment concluded she "almost certainly" died because of a series of medical mistakes. David Graham though protected these doctors for at least 10 years.
Dr David Graham was also instrumental in causing Amir Khan to face charges at the GMC because Amir challenged Mersey Deanery. So lets see, Mersey Deanery put Amir Khan through 3-4 years of hell while Shamala Ragilingham was simply allowed to go back to work.
Amir and Sushant did not compromise patient care. They faced the GMC. The four or more doctors who did compromise patient care are yet to face the General Medical Council. The General Medical Council took almost a decade to take the cases of Gerry Murphy et al up. That is because patient deaths come secondary at the GMC. The only doctors they are interested in are those who rebel against the profession.
Anyway, the material below is the document from the Information Commissioner. Dr David Graham was found guilty of breaching the Data Protection Act. This is listed here for the use of other doctors. Do remember that David Graham is Revalidation Tsar - and will be dealing with thousands of doctors data :). Aren't all of you lucky bunnies :).
By the way, David Graham knows about me. I have collected his data for years. There is of course more to come because the Dark Lord has many skeletons in his closets including the ones in his personal life.
15 November 2007
Case Reference Number RFA0147247
Dear Professor Graham
I write further to my colleague Gary Jones’ letter dated 22 August 2007 and in response to your letter of 19 September 2007. As you are aware the complaint we received from Mr S Varma was dealt with by Mr Jones in our Casework and Advice Division (CAD) and has now been transferred to the Regulatory Action Division (RAD) for our consideration.
I understand that Mr Varma has made a number of subject access requests (SARs) to Mersey Deanery dating back to 2003. Mr Varma has received responses to those SARs, however these responses have been both outside of the 40 day time limit and have not contained all the information to which Mr Varma is entitled. On this basis, Mr Jones made an assessment that it is unlikely that Mr Varma’s personal data has been processed in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
I note from the correspondence associated with this case that Mr Jones has provided you with advice and guidance on the DPA and, in particular, on the disclosure of third party data in response to SARs and on the application of the Legal Professional Privilege exemption. I understand that Mr Jones asked that, based on his advice, you provide Mr Varma with all the data to which he is entitled. In your letter dated 19 September you confirmed that Mr Varma has now been provided with all the data to which he is entitled.
At this point I would like to reiterate Mr Jones’ advice that if there are third party concerns arising from a SAR the data controller should, in the first instance, approach the third parties concerned to try and obtain their consent for disclosure. If consent is not forthcoming, the data controller must then decide whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individuals.
The DPA assists in interpreting whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individuals concerned. In deciding this question regard shall be had, in particular, to:
Any duty of confidentiality owed to the other individual;Any steps taken by the data controller with a view to seeking the consent of the other individual;Whether the other individual is capable of giving consent; andAny express refusal of consent by the other individual.
In other words, if the third parties concerned refuse their consent for the disclosure of this information, you would still need to decide whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to disclose some or all of the relevant information. I understand that you considered the third party data in question in line with this guidance and have provided Mr Varma with data on that basis.
I would also like to reiterate Mr Jones’ advice regarding Legal Professional Privilege that Litigation Privilege arises only after litigation or other adversarial proceedings have begun or are contemplated. It is also the case that Litigation Privilege only covers documents produced for the dominant purpose of the litigation.
I note your difference of opinion with Mr Jones that it may be difficult to substantiate your argument that proceedings were considered earlier in 2002, however it would appear that despite this difference of opinion there was agreement between your organisation and Mr Jones over the data you have withheld citing Legal Professional Privilege. Given that Mr Varma has apparently received the documents to which he is entitled I see no benefit in pursuing the issue of what date legal proceedings were considered.
I would like to remind you that the 40 day time limit for response to a SAR stands regardless of whether there are third party data issues to consider or if there is an exemption such as Legal Professional Privilege to apply.
In your letter of 19 September you ask if we could be more specific as to why we consider that Mr Varma’s SARs have been poorly handled. As outlined above, Mr Varma has made a number of SARs to Mersey Deanery since 2003 and it would appear that he has only now in 2007 received all the personal data to which he is entitled. The responses that Mr Varma did receive were either received outside of the 40 day time limit or did not contain all the information to which he was entitled, or both. Every failure to either respond fully to a SAR or to respond within the time limit constitutes a breach of the legal requirements of the DPA and leaves your organisation open to the possibility of enforcement action by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). I should explain that the ICO has powers to change the behaviour of organisations and individuals that collect, use and keep personal information. These powers are designed to bring about compliance with the DPA and related laws. They include criminal prosecution, non-criminal enforcement and audit. Regulatory Action is the term used to describe the exercise of these powers. Given that Mr Varma has apparently now received all the data to which he is entitled I do not believe it would be appropriate at this time to take enforcement action against Mersey Deanery, however we will keep details of this case on file and any future complaints we may receive will be considered in light of the advice provided in this case.
I appreciate that this case has been particularly complex and hope that the advice provided by this office has been of assistance. Should you require data protection advice in the future please contact our office. Contact details can be found on our website www.ico.gov.uk under ‘Contact us’. Finally, as mentioned above, our office will conduct audits, with the consent of the organisation concerned, in order assess the processing of personal data for the following of good practice. This is achieved by reviewing data protection related polices and guidance, interviewing staff responsible for the handling of personal data and by inspecting records. If you feel that your organisation would benefit from such an audit please contact out Audit Manager Sian Jones.
Yours sincerely
Remedies Manager
Dear Professor Graham
I write further to my colleague Gary Jones’ letter dated 22 August 2007 and in response to your letter of 19 September 2007. As you are aware the complaint we received from Mr S Varma was dealt with by Mr Jones in our Casework and Advice Division (CAD) and has now been transferred to the Regulatory Action Division (RAD) for our consideration.
I understand that Mr Varma has made a number of subject access requests (SARs) to Mersey Deanery dating back to 2003. Mr Varma has received responses to those SARs, however these responses have been both outside of the 40 day time limit and have not contained all the information to which Mr Varma is entitled. On this basis, Mr Jones made an assessment that it is unlikely that Mr Varma’s personal data has been processed in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
I note from the correspondence associated with this case that Mr Jones has provided you with advice and guidance on the DPA and, in particular, on the disclosure of third party data in response to SARs and on the application of the Legal Professional Privilege exemption. I understand that Mr Jones asked that, based on his advice, you provide Mr Varma with all the data to which he is entitled. In your letter dated 19 September you confirmed that Mr Varma has now been provided with all the data to which he is entitled.
At this point I would like to reiterate Mr Jones’ advice that if there are third party concerns arising from a SAR the data controller should, in the first instance, approach the third parties concerned to try and obtain their consent for disclosure. If consent is not forthcoming, the data controller must then decide whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individuals.
The DPA assists in interpreting whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individuals concerned. In deciding this question regard shall be had, in particular, to:
Any duty of confidentiality owed to the other individual;Any steps taken by the data controller with a view to seeking the consent of the other individual;Whether the other individual is capable of giving consent; andAny express refusal of consent by the other individual.
In other words, if the third parties concerned refuse their consent for the disclosure of this information, you would still need to decide whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to disclose some or all of the relevant information. I understand that you considered the third party data in question in line with this guidance and have provided Mr Varma with data on that basis.
I would also like to reiterate Mr Jones’ advice regarding Legal Professional Privilege that Litigation Privilege arises only after litigation or other adversarial proceedings have begun or are contemplated. It is also the case that Litigation Privilege only covers documents produced for the dominant purpose of the litigation.
I note your difference of opinion with Mr Jones that it may be difficult to substantiate your argument that proceedings were considered earlier in 2002, however it would appear that despite this difference of opinion there was agreement between your organisation and Mr Jones over the data you have withheld citing Legal Professional Privilege. Given that Mr Varma has apparently received the documents to which he is entitled I see no benefit in pursuing the issue of what date legal proceedings were considered.
I would like to remind you that the 40 day time limit for response to a SAR stands regardless of whether there are third party data issues to consider or if there is an exemption such as Legal Professional Privilege to apply.
In your letter of 19 September you ask if we could be more specific as to why we consider that Mr Varma’s SARs have been poorly handled. As outlined above, Mr Varma has made a number of SARs to Mersey Deanery since 2003 and it would appear that he has only now in 2007 received all the personal data to which he is entitled. The responses that Mr Varma did receive were either received outside of the 40 day time limit or did not contain all the information to which he was entitled, or both. Every failure to either respond fully to a SAR or to respond within the time limit constitutes a breach of the legal requirements of the DPA and leaves your organisation open to the possibility of enforcement action by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). I should explain that the ICO has powers to change the behaviour of organisations and individuals that collect, use and keep personal information. These powers are designed to bring about compliance with the DPA and related laws. They include criminal prosecution, non-criminal enforcement and audit. Regulatory Action is the term used to describe the exercise of these powers. Given that Mr Varma has apparently now received all the data to which he is entitled I do not believe it would be appropriate at this time to take enforcement action against Mersey Deanery, however we will keep details of this case on file and any future complaints we may receive will be considered in light of the advice provided in this case.
I appreciate that this case has been particularly complex and hope that the advice provided by this office has been of assistance. Should you require data protection advice in the future please contact our office. Contact details can be found on our website www.ico.gov.uk under ‘Contact us’. Finally, as mentioned above, our office will conduct audits, with the consent of the organisation concerned, in order assess the processing of personal data for the following of good practice. This is achieved by reviewing data protection related polices and guidance, interviewing staff responsible for the handling of personal data and by inspecting records. If you feel that your organisation would benefit from such an audit please contact out Audit Manager Sian Jones.
Yours sincerely
Remedies Manager
0 comments:
Post a Comment