Can the GMC spot the obvious? I have a sense of humor. During battles I often engage this sense of humour. It is the 1st May 2010. In May 2007, Worcestershire NHS Trust had lied for the General Medical Council's defence in R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal. The two consultants at the time mocked the fact that the GMC had opened an investigation on me, made a grand fanfare about it and advertised it to everyone in the Trust. Subsequently, no one kept in touch with me from Worcestershire Mental Health Trust showing us all that they were never real friends in the first place. Showtime is always interesting for people. Kindness is probably more difficult. Fortunately for me, the GMC dropped the investigation before what the GMC call " Rule 7". Unfortunately, for Dr Monterio and Dr Choong, matters have not been quite so fortunate. These are the Rule 7 letters supplied on the three year anniversary of the events. The smile has probably been wiped off both their faces since they no longer hold the positions they once did. I have often mention this " Reversal of Fortune" technique but few play the kind of tactics that I engage in. I have a zero tolerance policy. I have absolutely no sympathy when in battle. I got myself out of the GMC before the case examiners even had time to breath and I used my own case law to push these two cowboys into the GMC. There is some-kind of poetic justice in that.
The impact of the lies by these consultants are as follows
1. The GMC are open to investigate me if I return to the Register
2. The case law in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal has been damaged quite considerably and irreparably. This has affected the cases of many innocent doctors in the UK ie that Trusts are allowed to fire, doctors mid GMC investigation then lie about it. Moreover, that the GMC's damaging initial disclosure is now not recognised as being prejudicial to the employment prospects of a doctor.
The issue about the doctors is this. The biggest fattest mistake to make was to make conflicting statements to the documentation available. The second biggest fattest mistake to make was to underestimate me. I may have been a very quiet staff grade - but I was by no means unintelligent and I make it my business to kick back. I am uncertain what the GMC plan to do with this complaint but they can be sure that I will judicially review a negative outcome. So, this issue isn't going to disappear in the next five or more years especially when a Employment Tribunal Chairman supports me.
The impact of the lies by these consultants are as follows
1. The GMC are open to investigate me if I return to the Register
2. The case law in R v GMC Ex Parte Pal has been damaged quite considerably and irreparably. This has affected the cases of many innocent doctors in the UK ie that Trusts are allowed to fire, doctors mid GMC investigation then lie about it. Moreover, that the GMC's damaging initial disclosure is now not recognised as being prejudicial to the employment prospects of a doctor.
The issue about the doctors is this. The biggest fattest mistake to make was to make conflicting statements to the documentation available. The second biggest fattest mistake to make was to underestimate me. I may have been a very quiet staff grade - but I was by no means unintelligent and I make it my business to kick back. I am uncertain what the GMC plan to do with this complaint but they can be sure that I will judicially review a negative outcome. So, this issue isn't going to disappear in the next five or more years especially when a Employment Tribunal Chairman supports me.
Annex A
Dr Lin Sun Choong Kam Chong
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
1. Since 2004, you have worked as consultant psychiatrist, and as the Director of Medical Development, within the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust ("Trust").
2. From July 2006 to August 2009 you were also a GMC medical panellist.
3. From mid-March 2006 to late April or early May 2007, Dr Rita Pal worked intermittently and part-time at the Trust as a locum staff grade in general adult psychiatry. She was engaged pursuant to an arrangement between the Trust and Pulse, a locum agency. Dr Monteiro, a consultant psychiatrist and lead consultant for adult psychiatry within the Trust, was her supervising consultant.
4. In late April or early May 2007, Dr Pal's locum engagement at the Trust ceased.
5. On or about 3 May 2007, the Trust notified Pulse, orally and/or in writing, that Dr Pal's engagement was ceasing.
6. In a letter dated 2 August 2007 sent by Dr Monteiro, on behalf of the Trust, to Mr Stephen Farnworth, an investigation officer at the GMC, he stated that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with him in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact he dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation.
7. Dr Monteiro stated in High Court proceedings that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with him in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact he dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation. He so stated in:
(a) the letter dated 2 August 2007 referred to in 6 above;
and/or
(b) his witness statement dated 14 April 2009 in the case of R (Rita Pal) v GMC (CO/7386/07) ("witness statement").
8. In paragraph 15 of his witness statement, Dr Monteiro stated to the High Court that the Trust was, as regards the telephone conversation between you and Dr Pal in late April or early May 2007 "entirely unconnected with the GMC" whereas in fact you were a GMC medical panellist at that time.
9. The letter dated 2 August 2007 sent by Dr Monteiro, on behalf of the Trust, to Mr Farnworth at the GMC was, in fact, not only copied to you but also dictated or written by you. Accordingly, along with Dr Monteiro, you were responsible for its accuracy and consequences.
10. As stated in its paragraph 1, Dr Monteiro was duly authorised by the Trust to make his witness statements. Along with Dr Monteiro, therefore, you were responsible for the accuracy and consequences of his witness statement.
11. You instructed or encouraged or allowed Dr Monteiro to make these representations/statements to the GMC and the High Court.
12. Your actions described at 6 to 11 above, were:
(a) misleading;
(b) deliberately misleading;
(c) dishonest
And that in relation to the facts alleged your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
Dr William Orlando Monteiro
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
1. Since 2004, you have worked as a consultant psychiatrist and since at least 2007 as lead consultant for adult psychiatry within the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust ("Trust").
2. From mid-March 2006 to late April or early May 2007, Dr Rita Pal worked intermittently and part-time at the Trust as a locum staff grade in general adult psychiatry. She was engaged pursuant to an arrangement between the Trust and Pulse, a locum agency. You were her supervising consultant.
3. In late April or early May 2007, Dr Pal's locum engagement at the Trust ceased.
4. On or about 3 May 2007, the Trust notified Pulse, orally and/or in writing that Dr Pal's engagement was ceasing.
5. On 2 August 2007 in a letter from you, on behalf of the Trust, to Mr Stephen Farnworth, an investigation officer at the GMC, you stated that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with you in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact you dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation.
6. You stated in High Court proceedings that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with you in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact, you dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation. You so stated in:
(a) the letter dated 2 August 2007 referred to in 5 above;
and/or
(b) your witness statement dated 14 April 2009 in the case of R (Rita Pal) v GMC (CO/7386/07) ("witness statement").
7. In paragraph 15 of your witness statement, you stated that the Trust was, as regards the telephone conversation between you and Dr Pal in late April or early May 2007 "entirely unconnected with the GMC" whereas in fact Dr Choong, the Trust Director of Medical Development, was a GMC medical panellist at that time.
8. Your actions described at 5, 6 and 7 above, were
(a) misleading;
(b) deliberately misleading;
(c) dishonest
And that in relation to the facts alleged your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
Dr Lin Sun Choong Kam Chong
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
1. Since 2004, you have worked as consultant psychiatrist, and as the Director of Medical Development, within the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust ("Trust").
2. From July 2006 to August 2009 you were also a GMC medical panellist.
3. From mid-March 2006 to late April or early May 2007, Dr Rita Pal worked intermittently and part-time at the Trust as a locum staff grade in general adult psychiatry. She was engaged pursuant to an arrangement between the Trust and Pulse, a locum agency. Dr Monteiro, a consultant psychiatrist and lead consultant for adult psychiatry within the Trust, was her supervising consultant.
4. In late April or early May 2007, Dr Pal's locum engagement at the Trust ceased.
5. On or about 3 May 2007, the Trust notified Pulse, orally and/or in writing, that Dr Pal's engagement was ceasing.
6. In a letter dated 2 August 2007 sent by Dr Monteiro, on behalf of the Trust, to Mr Stephen Farnworth, an investigation officer at the GMC, he stated that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with him in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact he dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation.
7. Dr Monteiro stated in High Court proceedings that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with him in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact he dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation. He so stated in:
(a) the letter dated 2 August 2007 referred to in 6 above;
and/or
(b) his witness statement dated 14 April 2009 in the case of R (Rita Pal) v GMC (CO/7386/07) ("witness statement").
8. In paragraph 15 of his witness statement, Dr Monteiro stated to the High Court that the Trust was, as regards the telephone conversation between you and Dr Pal in late April or early May 2007 "entirely unconnected with the GMC" whereas in fact you were a GMC medical panellist at that time.
9. The letter dated 2 August 2007 sent by Dr Monteiro, on behalf of the Trust, to Mr Farnworth at the GMC was, in fact, not only copied to you but also dictated or written by you. Accordingly, along with Dr Monteiro, you were responsible for its accuracy and consequences.
10. As stated in its paragraph 1, Dr Monteiro was duly authorised by the Trust to make his witness statements. Along with Dr Monteiro, therefore, you were responsible for the accuracy and consequences of his witness statement.
11. You instructed or encouraged or allowed Dr Monteiro to make these representations/statements to the GMC and the High Court.
12. Your actions described at 6 to 11 above, were:
(a) misleading;
(b) deliberately misleading;
(c) dishonest
And that in relation to the facts alleged your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
Dr William Orlando Monteiro
That being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
1. Since 2004, you have worked as a consultant psychiatrist and since at least 2007 as lead consultant for adult psychiatry within the Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust ("Trust").
2. From mid-March 2006 to late April or early May 2007, Dr Rita Pal worked intermittently and part-time at the Trust as a locum staff grade in general adult psychiatry. She was engaged pursuant to an arrangement between the Trust and Pulse, a locum agency. You were her supervising consultant.
3. In late April or early May 2007, Dr Pal's locum engagement at the Trust ceased.
4. On or about 3 May 2007, the Trust notified Pulse, orally and/or in writing that Dr Pal's engagement was ceasing.
5. On 2 August 2007 in a letter from you, on behalf of the Trust, to Mr Stephen Farnworth, an investigation officer at the GMC, you stated that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with you in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact you dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation.
6. You stated in High Court proceedings that Dr Pal resigned from her engagement during a telephone conversation with you in late April or early May 2007, whereas in fact, you dismissed her from the engagement during that conversation. You so stated in:
(a) the letter dated 2 August 2007 referred to in 5 above;
and/or
(b) your witness statement dated 14 April 2009 in the case of R (Rita Pal) v GMC (CO/7386/07) ("witness statement").
7. In paragraph 15 of your witness statement, you stated that the Trust was, as regards the telephone conversation between you and Dr Pal in late April or early May 2007 "entirely unconnected with the GMC" whereas in fact Dr Choong, the Trust Director of Medical Development, was a GMC medical panellist at that time.
8. Your actions described at 5, 6 and 7 above, were
(a) misleading;
(b) deliberately misleading;
(c) dishonest
And that in relation to the facts alleged your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
4 comments:
Go you, Dr Pal! I'm always a fan of applying a nice hard boot to the arses of fat cat consultants. (On principle, regardless of whether or not they've been bad to me in the first place. But hey, that's just me - talk to my psychiatrist.)
Also, I'm totally with you on the Cameron for PM front - and you'll be glad to know, so's every NHS worker I'v spoken to :)
Hoorah!!
well done, Rita!
Hi AM
Nice to see you in this neck of the woods. You appear to look as swish as ever.
RP
Thanks Lizzie! I am not sure what these small Pyhrric victories are worth but there we go.
Post a Comment