Judge adjourns £180,000 costs hearing case against whistleblower consultant Dr Usha Prasad

Trust scales down cost claim from £180,000 to £24,000 in private case management meeting

Typical tribunal room Pic credit: gov.uk

In a surprise move this morning judge Mrs E J McLaren adjourned the £180,000 costs hearing brought by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust against whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad.

She took the decision before the hearing started and explained that one of the panellists who heard the original employment tribunal hearing under judge Tony Hyams-Parish was now unable to attend. This appears to have happened in the last 24 hours as the acting regional judge Omar Khalil had ordered the hearing to go ahead. No explanation was given why the panellist couldn’t suddenly attend.

The decision also comes as Dr Usha Prasad has repeatedly requested a postponement of the hearing because she is ill and couldn’t think straight because of mental stress and sent the tribunal a doctor’s note confirming this. This had been repeatedly ignored by lawyers Capsticks, who represent the trust, and the tribunal but the judge said yesterday that Dr Prasad’s health will be discussed in a private case management meeting convened immediately after the adjournment. At that meeting with the judge the trust caved in and reduced the costs claim from £180,000 to £24,000 and accepted it would have to wait some time for a fresh hearing.

The adjournment also comes at a time of national public outrage following the baby murder conviction of nurse Lucy Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital when it was revealed that managers threatened to report consultants who raised the alarm to the General Medical Council and forced them to write a letter of apology to the murderer nurse.

The situation was worse for Dr Prasad at the Epsom trust as she was reported to the General Medical Council by the trust . A document listing 43 cases was sent to the GMC who investigated her and then exonerated her taking the unusual decision to revalidate her to practice without any further application from her. That having failed the trust held an internal inquiry branding her as ” unfit for purpose ” as a human being because they could no longer say she wasn’t an excellent doctor.

Dr James Marsh

The man behind the continual pursuit of Dr Prasad is thought to be Dr James Marsh, the joint deputy chief executive and joint medical director of the St George’s, Epsom and St Helier hospital group, who gave evidence against her at the tribunal.

Jessica Blackburn

In a final act to put pressure on Dr Prasad before today’s tribunal Mrs Jessica Blackburn, the senior solicitor for lawyers, Capsticks representing the trust, sent her two new bundles of documents the previous night and Usha didn’t see it until only a few minutes before the tribunal was due to start. Given she knew she was mentally stressed and was a litigant in person with no lawyer to help her understand them, it looks to me like either a singularly callous act or she was rather late in finalising the trust’s case.

There is a wider issue here. As I have said before in 99.95 per cent of cases at employment tribunals, the employee does not pay the employer’s costs.

The picture that is now emerging is that the exception to this rule is the whistleblower. Usha’s case is not unique in this respect.

Dr Usha Prasad

Cost threats have been made against Dr Chris Day, who has been involved in a ten year battle with the Health Education Executive and Greenwich and Lewisham NHS trust over patient deaths and safety at Woolwich Hospital intensive care unit; Dr Peter Duffy, a urologist at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, later vindicated over patient deaths; and outside the NHS, Alison McDermott, a management consultant, over bullying and harassment at Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Two more whistleblowers have now come forward at Sellafield and are under threat.

This list is the tip of the iceberg – I know of a number of other doctors, belonging to the informal Justice for Doctors group, who haven’t made their cases public yet, who have also been threatened with huge costs.

It is almost as though NHS and public sector managers have devised a standard playbook to use against any whistleblower who dares bring up the issue of patient safety to frighten them from doing anything about it. This is an area which both the inquiry and MPs on the Commons health and social care committee must look into – for the sake of all hospital patients and the nuclear safety of our country. Management bullies who threaten caring doctors and nurses must be removed from their jobs. No whistleblower should suffer like Usha Prasad ever again.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to investigate forensically any injustice.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

8 thoughts on “Judge adjourns £180,000 costs hearing case against whistleblower consultant Dr Usha Prasad

  1. I have supported Chris Day in the past and a couple of other cases not mentioned here. It looks like this has become one of the  the standard responses of senior management in any organisation when they are criticised . Think of the police and the justice service, (I won’t recap the details for you Bertie, it would take too long).

    Like

    • You say you believe Dr James Marsh is the man behind the continual pursuit of Dr Prasad. Are you so sure he is the “Lone Gunman”? I believe you may be giving Dr Marsh too much credit on his alleged role. Perhaps you should be looking further up the feeding chain at the Epsom and St Helier Trust. Therefore a a Question: What role did Gillian Norton, the CEO of the Trust, personally have in Dr Prasad’s case and dismissal?
      Bearing in mind Ms Nortons previous relationships with whistleblowers before she came into the NHS, perhaps you should asking this question of this safe pair of hands.

      Like

  2. It might be worth listening to the Media Show BBC R4 which was on today (wed 23rd) at 4.30 -I caught most of it. It is available on BBC Sounds and looked at aspects of reporting of the Lucy Letby case. During the report and interviews, the point was made, I think from a journo at Nursing Times, about Trusts and whistleblowers, and the competition that has been going on between NHS Foundation Trusts for money , grants, research that could pressure them to prioritise brand reputation over patient safety. This is pertinent to all the whistleblowers David mentions and is relevant to doctors for justice.

    Like

    • Like all NHS Trusts when allegations against them are made they hide behind their limited response of no comment because of an ongoing police investigation. What is needed is a dog with a bone. Woof Woof.

      Like

  3. From the playbook; action against whistle-blowers is co-ordinated as a MDT group. There is always one or two core members of the group that drive action but the consequences are very wide ranging and most of those enacting actions like re-directing concerns of others, adding names in investigations to create smoker, often blacklisting whilst those enacting the issues often do not even know; just that the name is highlighted in yellow, or an informal HPAN/Red Notice is floating about….

    Like

  4. Pingback: The double standards on whistleblowing by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust | Westminster Confidential

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.