Trust lawyers try to turn his patient safety claims against them against him
Dr Martyn Pitman
Mark Sutton, the leading lawyer for Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, tried to turn Dr Pitman’s patient safety complaints against his employer in both the maternity wards and the midwifery service against him in the third day of the hearing.
The former Old Square head of chambers highlighted a letter from the trust’s chief executive when Dr Pitman was trying to rejoin the trust after being suspended for two years. This followed a meeting of senior managers that decided that he could not come back because he posed a ” risk to patient safety “. Dr Pitman again had not seen the full minutes of the meeting.
Previously the KC had highlighted a disputed serious treatment case in the maternity ward- where Dr Pitman challenged a colleague and blamed the person for not being competent to do the job which led to the death of a patient.
Mr Sutton claimed that this led to a row in a hospital corridor which Dr Pitman said did not happen and was sorted out at a meeting in his office.
The lawyer also said that patient safety was at risk in the ward he managed because his relationship with the consultant team was dysfunctional. This was categorically denied by Dr Pitman who said he had ” eight years of positive relationships with his colleagues”.
His lawyer, Jack Mitchell, a junior barrister from Old Square Chambers, then pointed out that Mark Sutton had missed out a passage in one of the documents that showed Dr Pitman, far from not being concerned about patient safety, had warned the then associate director of midwifery Ms Janice MacKenzie of changes needed in the maternity ward to avoid deaths. A week later one baby had died and another had serious problems and no action had been taken by her.
Dr Putman ended the cross examination feeling weepy . The Judge Jonathan Gray, asked him why he seemed to be blaming everyone in the health trust for his predicament. He said this because every time he took issues up with the hospital hoping it would be resolved at a higher level including at board level there had been no attempt to do so.
Later Dr Michael Heard a retired consultant who worked alongside Dr Pitman defended his stance at the hospital. He said Dr Pitman was ” direct not rude” and ” passionate about his job “. He said he had good relations with Janice Mackenzie – who has accused Dr Pitman of forcing her to leave a meeting to cry in the toilet – and could not comment on some of the accusations brought by her because he was not there.
He described him as ” direct to the point and put his main points in writing in bold ” but did not use expletives. He said his style was “challenging and well researched.”
He also confirmed Dr Pitman’s main point that the maternity and gynaecology wards had been short staffed and all the consultants had been frustrated about it for years because nothing was done about it by the trust.
The trust’s lawyer, Mark Sutton, also raised whether a letter he wrote to the trust about Dr Pitman had been prompted by him. Dr Heard said he had done without his knowledge in the hope that matters could be sorted out informally.
” By then matters had gone too far”, he said. The tribunal continues tomorrow.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyplease donate to Westminster Confidential
£10.00
Westminster Confidential 
The Judge’s comment is significant, bearing in mind he will be protecting the interests of the NHS. Just as HHJ Nigel Godsmark did in my own case. He prevented me from making oral submissions that kept my evidence out of the public arena, he also excluded much of my evidence from his judgement. He demonstrated no engagement whatsoever with the evidence material to the allegations and in most areas does not even mention it. He presents a distorted and inaccurate version of events that, in many areas, is not supported by any contemporaneous evidence at all, or even contradicts it, and he closed his eyes to the numerous breaches of duty on the parts of Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust the solicitor, Ms Isherwood, and her hired gun experts.
Even when the facts behind DHCFT’s smear campaign had been demonstrated to lack proper foundation, my reputation remained tarnished and embedded regardless of the truth. The judge worked hard to represent DHCFT’s smear campaign and proven falsehoods while working hand in hand with DHCFT with a judgement that reads as a promotional press release for DHCFT. This was a theatre of the absurd in which the leading actor, HHJ Godsmark, played somersaults to defend the indefensible and close his eyes to the truth, no mater how unambiguous the evidence was before him. In attacking the truth, HHJ Godsmark made 2 +2 = 5:
LikeLike
I cannot fault your assessment of the Judge’s myopic (other adjectives ********) comments. The J (or their judgment) almost always supports the Respondent – in 97% of cases. The figures are published. Does that figure reflect “open and fair justice”? Absolutely not! The Judiciary cannot be cross-examined about these ET decisions – or anything for that matter! They are seemingly untouchable. Oh, sorry yes we do have the pathetic Employment Appeal Tribunal system which is just another of our opaque and arcane procedure (in cahoots with the ET) designed to oppress the Claimant – or, give a “win” to the Respondent. Ring any bells? The whole system of ETs and EATs is closed and corrupted. Selected evidence is not examined (for example in one case GMC exoneration x2), witnesses are uncalled. The ET system is corrupt and corrupted from the top. It should be subjected to a major Parliamentary enquiry. Oh, but that means it would have to be agreed by the Lords which is populated by a large number of Judges so, er, that won’t work will it?
We have an egregious and inhumane (OK, that’s enough adjectives, Ed) process of dealing with honest upright people who raise safety concerns – aka whistleblowers. They are condemned as if they are criminals and in some parts of the system, they are treated (no exaggeration) as if the have committed a criminal offence. Suspensions, restrictions, dismissals, loss of career, income, family life, self esteem, cost threats, NDAs, subjudice etc and tragically, sometimes loss of life by suicide. Now, do the NHS managers, the lazy biased Judiciary, feel good about all this? Probably not? Well neither do many other victims of the system. The whole process of dealing with whistleblowing (a bona fide and free) service to society) requires an enquiry at the highest level. It is extremely urgent, really!
LikeLike