Judicial Review success for Doctor regarding disclosure of confidential medical information.

The claimant was a surgeon. In May 2010, he was notified by the defendant General Medical Council (GMC) that a fitness to practise hearing (the hearing) would commence in June 2010 to consider an allegation that his fitness to practice was impaired by reason of misconduct and/or deficient professional performance, and also on the grounds of ill- health. The Doctor asked for the Panel to consider an application for voluntary erasure and also that the hearing be heard in private. The panel determined that it was in the public interest for the case to be heard in public.

The case adjourned and the following day fresh medical evidence was produced by the doctor regarding the aderse effects of publicity on his health. The Panel determined that subject to two excpetions the case would be heard in public and the doctor applied for judicial review of that decision.

 The Court held that the panel had misdirected itself.

 In the instant case, although the public interest in maintaining confidence in the medical profession meant that there was a public interest in the public knowing that there was a legitimate reason for the grant of a voluntary erasure application, it had not followed that the public interest required the specific nature of the claimant's illness to be disclosed. There was no reason to think that if the panel stated, when granting the application, that the claimant was suffering from 'a severe health problem that was not likely to be resolved in the near future' that the public would not consider that to be a legitimate reason for the panel's decision. Further, it was not clear that if the panel stated that the claimant was suffering from 'severe depression' the public would consider that they had been provided with a more legitimate reason than if the panel had stated that he was suffering from a 'severe health problem'. The panel had misdirected itself as to the balancing exercise it had had to undertake. The reasons given by the panel strongly suggested that it had erred in law and had failed to give sufficient weight to the fresh medical evidence produced by the doctor.

Doctors

View all stories

Contact Us Now