13750 - DR S KHADRI and NEWCASTLE PCT - Appeal against removal from the Performers List
| Judgement Number | 13750 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) |
CASE NO. FHS/13750
IN THE FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES APPEAL AUTHORI TY
Mr D Pratt - Chair
Dr R Rathi - Professional Member
Mr R Rhodes - Member
BETWEEN:
DR SYED KHADRI
(GMC No. 1557369)
Appellant
AND
NEWCASTLE PRIMARY CARE TRUST
Respondent
DECISION AND REASONS
APPEAL
1. This is an appeal by Dr Syed Khadri (Dr Khadri) against a decision by Newcastle Primary
Care Trust (the PCT), communicated by its letter dated 19 March 2007, to remove him from
its Performers List (“the List”) under Regulation 10 of the NHS (Performers List) Regulations
2004 (“the Regulations”) on the grounds that his cont inued inclusion in the List would be
prejudicial to the efficiency of the service and the safety of patients.
2. The appeal was heard over three days from Friday 24 August to Wednesday 29 August at
the FHSAA headquarters, Harrogate. Dr Khadri was represented by Mr Neil Davy of Counsel,
instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur, solicitors, and the PCT b y Mr Andrew Post of Counsel,
instructed by Hempsons, solicitors.
DECISION
3. Our unanimous decision is to dismiss the appeal and direct the removal of Dr Khadri’s name
from the Performers’ List of this PCT.
REASONS
The PCT decision under appeal
4. Following an oral hearing on 15 March 2007 to review Dr Khadri’s then current suspension
under Regulation 14 of the 2004 Regulations, and consider his removal or contingent
removal from the List, the PCT gave its formal decision and reasons by letter dated 19 March
2007. Its decision (set out in paragraph 1 above) was expressed t o be for the following
reasons:
a. “Poor clinical knowledge (as evidenced in the report from the Northern Deanery).
b. Inability to retrain (as evidenced in the report from the Northern Deanery).
c. The extensive level of conditions that would need to be put in place t o allow you to
practice [sic].”
In reaching this decision we were minded to consider t he findings of the NCAS report
which was further supported by the conclusions of the Postg raduate Institute for Medicine
and Dentistry.
Before reaching a conclusion that removal was the appropriat e course of action the panel
considered the option of Contingent Removal but decided t here were no adequate
conditions that could be imposed with any measure of confid ence, that would address the
areas of concern that would not make your working life in G eneral Practice impractical.”
The grounds of appeal
5. By a Notice of Appeal dated 12 April 2007 Dr Khadri set out three grounds of appeal or
matters of complaint:
a. Various matters of alleged procedural unfairness, centred on a refusal to adjourn in
light of what was alleged to be inadequate time to c onsider evidence served from the
Northern Deanery.
b. The PCT Panel wrongly took into account information conveyed to the Chairman by
the Deanery and not previously disclosed to Dr Khadri.
c. The PCT Panel attached excessive weight to the evidence presented by the
Investigating Officer and failed to take into account that D r Khadri had insufficient
opportunity to respond to it.
In all the circumstances the decision was unfair, unreasonab le and disproportionate and
Dr Khadri was not given a fair hearing
6. In the event this Panel was not concerned to consider allegations of procedural unfairness
before the PCT, since Mr Davy properly conceded that t his appeal proceeded as a
redetermination, in which the burden lay on the PCT to prove it s case, and that, absent any
continuing prejudice to which he could point, procedural unfairnes s at the PCT stage was
irrelevant to this appeal. Thus (a) and (b) fell away and (c) was relevant only to the extent we
were invited to balance other evidence against that of the I nvestigating Officer and reach a
different conclusion.
7. By his skeleton argument, Dr Khadri invited this Panel to substitute a decision for contingent
removal, subject to conditions that: (i) he comply with such training/ professional development
requirements as identified by the NCAS assessment, and (ii) t hat he should undergo a further
neuropsychological assessment of his cognitive funct ion.
8. Dr Khadri’s case as outlined in his skeleton argument, was that he should be given the
opportunity to make further investigations regarding options f or retraining. This position was
developed in his witness statement. For present purpose the relevant part of that document
was paragraph 7:
To continue reading
Request your trial