Category Archives: health

How Hampshire Trust’s former chief medical officer Lara Alloway turned Martyn Pitman from a well respected clinician to” a present danger to patient safety”

Posted on by
Dr Lara Alloway: former chief medical officer. Pic credit: Hampshire NHS Trust

For the last day and a half Dr Lara Alloway, the case manager promoted to chief medical officer midway through his investigation, has been giving evidence for the Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust against whistleblower obstetrician Dr Martyn Pitman at his tribunal hearing.

She is a respondent in her own right alongside the trust and faced a forensic cross examination from Jack Mitchell, junior barrister from Old Square Chambers, paid by the British Medical Association which is backing Dr Martyn Pitman, who was dismissed from the trust for being” a danger to patient safety and the public” because of a breakdown in relations in his ward.

He traced the whole history of the case and challenged Dr Alloway over issues of conflicts of interest, failure to minute meetings, not following national NHS guidelines in investigating his case and sending a letter to Alex Whitfield, the trust’s chief executive, containing an untrue claim that he was involved in a clinical negligence case.

Dr Alloway presented herself to the tribunal as a person concerned with Dr Pitman’s welfare who wanted him to return to the trust and praising his clinical ability and reputation with some communication problems only to turn against him at the eleventh hour and secure his dismissal and the end of his career. The documents which sealed his fate were withheld from him, as earlier evidence has already been given, until he obtained them through Freedom of information and subject access requests.

Mr Mitchell cited a parallel with the Amin Abdullah case, the male nurse who burnt himself to death in 2016 outside Kensington Palace after being sacked and treated unfairly by Charing Cross Hospital An independent inquiry found the trust’s disciplinary procedures ” weak and unfair ” and the NHS sent new guidance for trusts in handling disciplinary procedures which have been sent to the Hampshire trust. The trust do not see a parallel.

Mr Mitchell also questioned whether she had followed the proper procedures for an investigation into him under the Maintaining High Professional Standards process since it was never referred to the national case review body.

Dr Martyn Pitman
Iack Mitchell

He also asked her about the screening group of managers contained a conflict of interest since one of the participants Janice MacKenzie, a midwifery manager, took part the decision to go ahead with an investigation was one of the principal complainants against him. Dr Alloway replied it had been referred to her predecessor chief medical officer, Andrew Bishop. It turned out there were no minutes of the meeting and Dr Galloway admitted it was just “a conversation” not a meeting.

It was put to her that there had been a long standing concern by consultants at the Winchester hospital about lack of staffing and the failure of midwifery managers to help out when it was short staffed and the trust had a meeting with them to discuss their concerns. Mr Mitchell contrasted that with the attitude of the trust that when Dr Pitman raised the very same issue as a whistleblowing concern the trust said ” it was not in the public interest.”

It also emerged that about half a dozen consultants had sent evidence about having good relations with Dr Pitman in contrast to the four midwifery managers who had complained about their ” well being harmed” by his treatment of them. She admitted that she had received them but dismissed them because she thought Dr Pitman had encouraged them to write to her. Mr Mitchell described her attitude as ” perjorative” against him.

Today Mr Mitchell concentrated on the run up to his dismissal. Dr Pitman wanted to challenge the findings of the MHPS findings – and she suggested he should file a grievance procedure while taking part in mediation and psychological coaching so he could return to the wards.

Then there was a tragic incident which caused ructions in the maternity ward- a 32 year old mother, Lucy Howell, died giving childbirth to Pippa who survived . She previously had a Caesarian which has caused her damage but the hospital had lost the notes of the case which recommended another Caesarian. Instead she had an induced birth with hormones that were inappropriate and died from a rupture. All this added to Dr Pitman’s concerns about patient safety and it coincided with his grievance procedure. And it made relations worse.

Dr Alloway decided to call an extraordinary meeting of a trust advisory committee following this incident. But it turned out to be a meeting concentrating on bad relations in the ward putting safety at risk with Dr Pitman as the principal problem.

Mr Mitchell pointed out that his grievances about patient safety appeared to arrive on the same day – but Dr Alloway denied it had any impact on the meeting. Mr Mitchell raised the point as she had a ” conflict of interest” since she was both chairing the meeting and acting as his case manager.

The trust rushed in extra evidence to show revised NHS guidelines mean any top official can act as case manager and there is no conflict of interest and does not have to recuse him or herself.. It also emerged that two other managers did not declare they had dealings with Dr Pitman while coming to a decision on what to advise Dr Alloway. It was also confirmed by her that no documents or reports were given to the meeting, it was solely her verbal report.

She then wrote to the chief executive, Alex Whitfield, saying she needed to take action against him. It turned out she had consulted the human relations department and the trust’s legal counsel, but kept no minutes of the meetings. She admitted to the tribunal that was a mistake and she had learned from it. She also admitted she had wrongly included a reference to clinical negligence involving him.

Mark Sutton, the Old Square KC for the trust yesterday withdrew a statement calling Dr Pitman a ” freelance agitator” saying it was not the trust’s view of him. The case continues.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential.

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

Martyn Pitman tribunal: How top NHS trust managers fixed his dismissal in secret and didn’t reveal why

Posted on by
Dr Lara Alloway: pic credit: Hampshire Hospitals Trust
Dr Martyn Pitman: pic credit Hampshire Chronicle

The fourth day of the Dr Martyn Pitman tribunal provided extraordinary revelations of how top managers at the Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust secretly got rid of the popular whistleblower obstetrician and gynaecologist who raised patient safety issues in the midwifery and maternity services.

Two very different witnesses, Daniel Pebody, a senior employment adviser to the British Medical Association, and Ben Cresswell, Divisional Medical Director for the Surgical Department  at the trust, gave evidence on what happened to Dr Pitman from different sides of the managerial fence.

Mr Pebody was strongly questioned by the trust’s lawyer Mark Sutton, KC, the former head of chambers at Old Square Chambers. He had been called in by the BMA as a health employment expert, to examine the investigation report into Dr Pitman by the trust and the procedures used to dismiss him form his job.

He quietly clashed with Mr Sutton when the lawyer put to him that the “well being of midwifery managers” had been adversely affected by Dr Pitman ” bullying “attitude which Mr Sutton said led to one resignation. Mr Pebody said this was an issue of the “perception by the managers of their well being” and not an intentional attitude by the consultant “. Mr Sutton then brought up a guideline by ACAS ( the  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) that would allow a person to be sacked for ” unconsciously bullying people” to justify the trust’s decision.

Mr Pebody was also critical of the short time the investigator spent preparing her report – only one month – and pointed out it was one sided if not just short of biased, as nowhere in there were any views expressed from people supporting him. He hinted that perhaps the young person may have wanted to impress the trust as it was one of her first reports.

Biggest clash

The biggest clash came over when Dr Pitman learnt from the chief executive of the trust, Alex Whitfield, when he was about to be taken back by the trust that he couldn’t be because he could put patients ” at risk” and his clinical work would have to be monitored ( without any specification of what was wrong). The tribunal was told then he had no choice but to take “special leave”

Mr Pebody said this was ” appalling ” and ” this should never be allowed to happen again anywhere.”

The tribunal was then told by Mr Pebody of the battle Dr Pitman had to find out the reasons and get hold of the minutes of an advisory meeting of top managers who had met in private to advise Dr Lara Alloway, then chief medical officer of the trust, what action she could take against him.

He had to put in both a freedom of information request to his own employer and a subject access request before managers would part with the information. Mr Pebody was highly critical of the lack of transparency in the trust.

Later the trust’s Ben Cresswell gave evidence and was cross questioned by Martyn Pitman’s lawyer, Jack Mitchell, a junior barrister from Old Square Chambers. He had attended this key advisory meeting though he did not have any dealings with Dr Pitman.

Questioned by Mr Mitchell he had to admit that the extraordinary meeting- which was chaired by Dr Lara Alloway, who was handling Dr Pitman’s official grievance – received no written evidence, did not see the investigation report and were only told that there were multiple people who had complained about Dr Pitman.

Mr Mitchell described the sacking procedure as ” appalling”

Two issues were strongly contested by Mr Mitchell. First he pressed Mr Creswell on why Dr Alloway was chairing a meeting which would advise her on what to do when she was handling directly Dr Pitman’s grievances. He described this as ” a conflict of interest”. Mr Cresswell insisted that there was NHS guidance dating from the 1990s that limited what was a” conflict of interest” and senior staff were entitled to chair meetings when directly challenged by a doctor.

The second issue was over the wording of the final paragraph of the minutes which Mr Mitchell insisted showed that in fact a decision had been made by this advisory committee, which compromised all the senior managers, to sack Dr Pitman ” to protect patients and the public ” because patient safety was at risk if Dr Pitman could not get on with his colleagues. Mr Cresswell said this was advice and Dr Alloway would decide ” as the responsible officer” what view she was going to take. Dr Alloway, now the former chief medical officer of the trust, will be giving evidence on Monday as the tribunal continues.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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

Martyn Pitman tribunal: Hampshire Trust says it sacked whistleblower obstetrician to protect patients

Posted on by

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.

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

Martyn Pitman tribunal : Health trust never minuted meeting which led to the whistleblower consultant’s eventual sacking

Posted on by
Dr Martyn Pitman Pic Credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

The second day of the employment tribunal hearing brought by Dr Martyn Pitman, the whistleblower consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, against Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, was entirely devoted to a character assassination by the trust’s lawyers to attempt to prove he could not work with anyone. This is the key point of the trust’s grounds for sacking him.

Yesterday the doctor had issued a statement – which I was unable to report because of the tribunal’s remote access tech crash – explaining why he had brought the case and why he thought patient safety was at risk under new management at the Royal Hampshire Hospital’s midwifery service.

As the Press Association, who were at the court ,reported: “Mr Pitman said the merger of Royal Hampshire County Hospital with Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital NHS Trust in 2012 “proved challenging due to significant differences in the philosophy of care and management style”.

“I was justifiably reluctant to follow the low-risk, senior midwifery-led, pro-normalisation model of care championed by our new partners. I believe that, in the 21st century, maternity care should be patient-focused.

“Unfortunately this stance, somewhat professionally unpopular at the time, but now fully supported following recent enforced changes in UK maternity practice, made me vulnerable to managerial challenge.”

Effectively it meant more home than hospital births raising issues of patient safety. It was this change that led to a revolt by midwives who threatened a ” vote of no confidence” that enraged the managers and which Dr Pitman, who had worked in the hospital for over 20 years supported them.

It was this that led to the clash. As he said in his statement:

“Instead of working with me and my fellow consultants to address the concerns that had been raised, senior managerial colleagues realised the individual and organisational damage that our disclosures could cause.

“They chose instead to recruit the willing assistance of their senior trust managerial colleagues to subject me to a formal Managing High Professional Standards Investigations (MHPSI).

“As a direct consequence of exerting my professional responsibility in whistleblowing concerns I was subjected to brutal retaliatory victimisation.”

Today it emerged that the initial meeting between management and the three senior midwifery managers that led to the decision to launch an internal investigation into Dr Pitman’s conduct in backing the dispute was never minuted. The three had already accused him of bullying and one claimed she had to rush to the toilet to cry after a meeting with him.

This decision is remarkably similar to the action taken by the managers at the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust – who set up an informal unminuted group – so they could pursue whistleblower cardiology consultant Usha Prasad and sack her for raising whistleblowing concerns and claims of racism and sexism.

Dr Pitman told the tribunal he was ” astonished ” there were no minutes of the meeting. ” This was the meeting that set in motion a process that led my eventual sacking and end of my career at the hospital.”

Day’s grilling by Mark Sutton, KC

His answer was part of a day’s grilling by Mark Sutton ,KC the former head of chambers and part time judge at Old Square Chambers, where he accused Dr Pitman, on behalf of the trust, of behaving in a rude and arrogant way, declining to meet people, neglecting patients, slamming a door at a meeting, causing one member of the senior midwifery managers, to hand in her resignation because of his bullying , planning revenge on the trust and raising issues that ” were not in the wider public interest” by bringing this case.

Dr Pitman refuted these allegations. He pointed out that the letter of resignation from the manager came at a time when he was not at the hospital so he could not have bullied her. The accusation of planning to take a holiday at Christmas when they needed a consultant and therefore neglecting patients was caused by the management not telling him they had changed the procedures for staff to book holidays.

He categorically denied planning revenge against the hospital management but told the tribunal that when he returned before he was dismissed he found the situation concerning the management of the midwifery service had not improved and was worse.

The hearing continues tomorrow.

The trust in a fresh statement said:

“The trust ensured that all issues raised by Mr Pitman were thoroughly and impartially investigated, including in some instances through external review. Every effort was made to repair his relationships with the maternity and clinical colleagues in question – efforts which were unfortunately unsuccessful.

“We are increasingly concerned that Mr Pitman’s representation of the reasons for his dismissal could discourage others from raising important issues.”

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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

Protest demos and tech chaos at the start of whistleblower obstetrician Martyn Pitman’s case at the employment tribunal

Posted on by

Hearing reveals disjointed top management at Royal Hampshire hospital with midwives threatening ” vote of no confidence” in senior staff

Patients and NHS staff supporters of Dr Pitman stage demo outside the court

The long awaited three week hearing brought by Martyn Pitman, the popular whistleblower obstetrician and gynaecologist, against his dismissal by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust began yesterday.

Before even the court met in Southampton demonstrators turned up outside the building with placards expressing support for the doctor with some saying ” whistleblower or witch hunt”. Dr Pitman has a Facebook page ” Friends of Martyn Pitman, which has 1,700 followers – such is his support in Hampshire.

The trust does not consider he was sacked for whistleblowing

Then before the hearing could begin the tribunal’s remote access system crashed under the weight of journalists, including the BBC and the Press Association, and people wanting to report and observe the case. There had been doubt whether remote access would be granted by the judge – as it was said it had been ruled out. But with possibly up to 100 people from prominent medics and other whistleblowers the judge who is hearing the case relented.

As a result apart from a few journalists who managed to get into the small court nobody could hear the morning’s hearing as Dr Pitman started his evidence.

Remote access was restored about 2.15 pm but only 25 people were allowed to use it. Luckily I was one of the 25.

Dr Martyn Pitman Pic Credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

From the afternoon’s session when Dr Pitman was cross questioned by Old Square Chambers lawyer, Mark Sutton for the trust, it became pretty clear that the trust was going for a character assassination of the doctor who had raised patient and staff safety issues and was critical of the way senior management were handling it.

The issue discussed during the afternoon centred around strong misgiving by midwives working at the Winchester Hospital who were calling for a ” vote of no confidence ” against the nursing and midwives management. The consultant took up their cause.

Mr Sutton cited memos from senior staff which portrayed the consultant as an intimidating bully of women blocking the door at one meeting to prevent a senior manager leaving and leaving one senior manager ” crying in the toilet ” after a meeting with him. He was also dubbed ” an agitator” by Mr Sutton for taking up the midwives cause rather than leaving senior managers to sort it out between them.

Dr Pitman pointed out that the allegation he was a blocking a door was completely false as the meeting was in a small room and there were no seats left when he got there , so all he could do was lean against the door.

As for the meeting with another senior manager she had claimed that she had rushed out and went to the toilet to cry after meeting him. His version was this was a ” connivance” and not true. He told the tribunal that ” if this was true I would have been sacked the next day.” Instead he had been invited to further meetings to resolve it. It turned out both complainants were close friends.

And as for the accusation that he was an agitator Dr Pitman said that all he did was to ask for the opinions of all staff from health assistants to senior consultants about what they thought about the midwives concerns.

” I didn’t say what my opinion about it was so as not to influence them. I just asked what he thought.”

He added he had been “humbled ” by the fact that staff trusted him to look into the case.

The hearing continues today.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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

Martyn Pitman: Tribunal opens next week on a popular sacked obstetrician’s fight against a NHS trust on patient safety

Posted on by

But it appears the employment tribunal is trying to block the public and press from attending the hearing

Martyn Pitman: Pic credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

Next week in a cramped magistrates court in Southampton an employment tribunal judge will hear an extraordinary case about an extremely popular obstetrician and an exemplary clinician who was sacked by the Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust after he raised issues of patient and staff safety in its maternity services.

The trust has denied that he was dismissed because of whistleblowing or raising patient safety issues -claiming that it wants people to speak up about these issues. In a statement last June it said : ” no member of staff has ever been dismissed for whistleblowing or raising concerns over patient safety; and they never will be.” But despite the dispute with Dr Pitman going on for four and a half years it has never said publicly why it dismissed him and will have to explain itself to the tribunal next week.

In the meantime the 57 year old obstetrician and gynaecologist has had unprecedented support from the people in Hampshire . A Facebook group called Friends of Martyn Pitman was set up by Lynda Emptage, a patient of Martyn’s for 20 years, who was so upset about news of his dismissal, that she wanted an inquiry. It now has 1,700 members.

Sarah Parish Pic credit: Somerset Live

He has also been publicly praised by  Broadchurch actress Sarah Parish who credits Martyn with saving not only her life but also her daughter Nell’s life. She had a late baby in her early 40s and without his intervention in an emergency she believes both of them would have died. He has also had an article about his concerns in The Times and appeared on breakfast TV.

The timing of the case is also embarrassing for the trust as it comes straight after the national scandal at the Countess of Chester hospital where Lucy Letby, a nurse, was convicted by a jury of murdering babies and the management of the trust emerged as threatening doctors and forcing them to write a letter of apology to her after they raised genuine concerns.

The trust appears to have been extremely reluctant to have any employment tribunal hearing at all. In April this year it attempted to strike out his defence and was largely unsuccessful.

Mark Sutton KC
jack Mitchell

Now the trust has decided to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money employing the former head of Old Square Chambers and part time employment judge, Mark Sutton, for the three week hearing. Mr Sutton is more used to taking cases to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal as well as representing trusts and doctors ” fitness to practice ” cases. His CV says he” is the sort of person who would inspire confidence in any judge” but also an expert lawyer on doctor’s disciplinary cases.

Dr Pitman, who is backed by the British Medical Association, is also represented by Old Square Chambers. His brief is Jack Mitchell. His CV on Old Square Chambers website says he is the ” go to junior counsel ” for whistleblowers and he has written two books on whistleblowing and an article on  whistleblowing in sport. He has represented Babcock, Eurotunnel, Paul Smith, Royal Mail, Thomson Reuters, The Ritz, Terrence Higgins Trust and the BBC in previous cases. He has represented clients with successful claims against companies including, Lloyds Bank, HSBC and HP.”

So whatever happens in this case Old Square Chambers are going to make a small fortune out of this hearing. Solicitors in the case are Bevan Brittan, for the trust and Capital Law for Dr Pitman.

Entrance to Southampton Magistrates Court. Pic Credit: Southampton Daily Echo

There is also some concern about whether the public and the press will be able to hear and report the case. For a start Southampton Magistrates Court is a very small one. Some people say it is pokey and will hardly hold many people once the teams of lawyers and staff from the trust have taken up the seats. The entrance as you can see above is hardly inviting. Given the huge interest among the public in the case with 1700 on one website supporting Dr Pitman it is rather surprising the court authorities chose such a pokey venue.

It is also not listed as a hybrid hearing – both in person and on line – even though Southampton can have hearings remotely. People, including myself, and a number of distinguished physicians and whistleblowers across the UK have applied for a remote link to hear the proceedings but have had no response from the employment tribunal service beyond a standardised letter of acknowledgement.

Frankly as the judiciary is supposed to be committed to ” open justice” I think a refusal to allow people to attend remotely will be seen as ” hole in a corner justice” particularly as employment tribunals do not keep a record of the proceedings themselves.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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

BMA chair seeks whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad’s reinstatement and the dropping of cost hearings in the case

Posted on by

But the trust is rushing to reconvene the cost hearing before she can go to a tribunal to challenge the verdict against her

Dr Phil Banfield chair of the British Medical Association

The British Medical Association has belatedly intervened in the long running dispute between whistleblower cardiology consultant Dr Usha Prasad and the Epsom and St Helier University Trust (now combined with St George’s Hospital Trust).

Dr Phil Banfield, chair of the BMA, has written directly to the chief executive of the trust, Jacqueline Totterdell, asking her to drop the costs hearing and reinstate her.

Dr Prasad was facing a hearing last month where the trust was demanding that she pay £180,000 of its costs including the fees of 21 lawyers employed by Capsticks and a QC. It was called off at the last moment when one of the tribunal panel failed to turn up. The financial demand was suddenly reduced to £24,000 without any explanation from the trust at the same time. As reported previously 99.95 per cent of employment tribunals never ask the claimant to pay the employers’ costs. If it had gone ahead it would have been a record sum claimed by any health trust against one of its medical staff.

Dr Usha Prasad

The BMA’s top level intervention by its chairman comes after a long campaign by consultants supporting Dr Prasad to ask their union to act. The BMA previously decided not to give her legal support which meant much of the time she was a litigant in person fighting 21 lawyers. One hearing which I attended, she was represented by a barrister, but the judge Tony Hyams-Parish, who lives in the Epsom and Ewell area, threw out her whistleblowing claims and her race and sex discrimination claims as ” misconceived” or ” without merit”.

Jacqueline Totterdell, chief executive of the trust

The BMA in their letter to the trust highlights the race complaints.. Quoting from the trust’s own information it says: “The figures which Dr Prasad has shared with us are attached and point to a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority doctors during a period when Dr Prasad was employed by the Trust. It is notable that 10 of the 11 doctors subjected to conduct concerns were from an ethnic minority background when ethnic minority doctors made up approximately one in three of the workforce for the period 2018-2020. It is of further note that all of those excluded, referred to the GMC, or dismissed were from an ethnic minority background.”

The BMA has asked for an explanation. Certainly it seems to me that either the trust’s recruitment policy was so flawed about the BAME doctors it employed or the people responsible for this were racially biased. The judge who heard the same evidence ignored it.

judge tony hyams parish

The judge also expunged from the record whistleblowing claims by Dr Prasad about the ” avoidable death” of a heart patient whose death was never reported by the hospital to the coroner or the Care Quality Commission. At the hearing Dr Richard Bogle, the head of cardiology, admitted it was wrong and should have been reported. The judge ignored what he said allowing the trust to try and claim that whistleblowing has nothing to with her dismissal.

The letter from the BMA emphasises the distress caused to Dr Prasad. “It is with concern we note the impact that this is having on Dr Prasad who reports great distress at facing a cost application before her appeal is heard where she is seeking redress for whistleblowing detriments including discrimination and harassment which she vigorously contends she has suffered while in the employment of Epsom and St Hellier University Hospitals NHS Trust.”

It calls on the trust to withdraw from costs proceedings against Dr Prasad adding: “We are concerned that this threat from employers of legal costs may be used to discourage people from raising legitimate public interest concerns or seeking to redress workplace injustices in the future. As I am sure you are aware, it is important that doctors are able to raise concerns about behaviours and actions that may have an adverse effect on patient safety.”

The letter asks the trust to reconsider re-instating Dr Prasad adding ” alongside an apology and reversal of damages caused to her, thereby resolving this long running litigation and allowing Dr Prasad to fulfil her career in medicine.”

I asked the trust for its response. This is it:

“It is entirely inaccurate that the Trust is seeking legal fees in relation to issues stemming from Dr Prasad raising patient safety concerns. The Employment Tribunal heard a number of claims by Dr Prasad which they unanimously dismissed, and commented that some of them were ‘completely misconceived’. The Employment Tribunal will hold a further hearing to decide whether Dr Prasad should pay a contribution towards the Trust’s costs.

“We take patient safety concerns very seriously and encourage everyone who works at the Trust to raise issues at every opportunity so we can make improvements to patient care.”

The trust is as good as its word on rushing through the case. At the case management hearing that followed the adjournment of the hearing the KC for the trust got them to agree to rush through the next hearing despite a huge backlog of cases at that tribunal.

Dr Prasad has only until September 29 to tell them whether she can pay the £24,000 and provided full details and documents of her income and outgoings. She has until October 20 to provide a witness statement backing up the reasons why she cannot pay. She also has to provide a skeleton argument five days before the hearing. No date has yet been fixed but she has a date at the end of January for her employment appeal tribunal hearing where she can challenge the judge’s verdict.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue investigative reporting like this.

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

Revealed: The battalions of Capsticks lawyers employed to pursue whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad

Posted on by
Dr Usha Prasad

The adjournment on Wednesday of the costs hearing against whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad provided welcome relief for embattled and mentally stressed consultant cardiologist dismissed by the Epsom and St Helier University NHS trust.

But before the case was adjourned by judge Mrs E J McLaren ( and the trust’s claim cut from £180,000 to £24,000) Capsticks had submitted a breakdown of their costs to the judge. They had to do this to get the trust’s costs back and it provides a rare public insight into the length lawyers go to pursue whistleblowers at the trust’s behest.

Remember all the money spent by the trust comes from you the taxpayer and is used by the management of the trust to pursue whistleblowers rather than provide more patient care. And also remember again that in 99.95 per cent of all employment tribunal cases the employee is not asked to pay the employer’s costs.

So the £172,000 bill presented by Capsticks to the tribunal makes very interesting reading. It reveals that at various times no fewer than 20 lawyers and paralegals were involved in countering Dr Usha Prasad various claims. They were paid anything from £82 to £160 an hour. They included two partners on £160 an hour, three in house barristers two on £160 an hour and one on £120 an hour;, two legal directors again on £160 an hour, four senior solicitors on between £130 and £160 an hour; three solicitors on £143 and £120 an hour, two trainee solicitors on £96 an hour and five paralegals on £82 an hour.

Counsel Fees for the barrister Miss Nadia Motraghi totalled £50.775 .These were for a Preliminary Hearing on 30.09.21 and a brief and refresher on a Final Hearing on 01.11.21 for 16 day hearing.

Jessica Blackburn, senior solicitor at Capsticks Ltd

The biggest payout among the 20 lawyers working for Capsticks was to Jessica Blackburn, a senior solicitor who was promoted half way through the case, earned over £47,000 in fees for pursuing Dr Usha Prasad. There is a profile of her on this site here. She was the most combative in her approach , ignoring her doctor’s plea for a postponement and telling her everything she had claimed, including the whistleblower case over an ” avoidable death ” of a heart patient was ” without merit”.

In contrast Dr Usha Prasad could only afford one barrister for part of the time and relied on a friend and fellow consultant Dr Philip Howard to support her pro bono. Otherwise she was a litigant in person facing a team of 20 lawyers.

St Helier Hospital

What is the most disturbing is that the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust can ill afford to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money pursuing a consultant cardiologist. She had to spend 28 months in the office on ” restricted clinical duty” while the trust investigated 43 cases against her. They sent them to the General Medical Council which not only exonerated her but extended her licence to practice without the need for further revalidation. Any sane person would have decided then and there to drop all this and reinstated her after the GMC findings.

Instead they continued what can be only described as a vendetta against her putting her under more and more stress until she was barely able to cope attending another tribunal hearing.

Meanwhile the trust is building up debts – the latest board meeting in July revealed it is £35 million in the red ( up from £27 million in April). Patients waiting for cardiac procedures, mainly imaging, and reviews are having to wait longer and the waiting list is growing – up from 2551 in July 2022 to 2901 in April 2023 -according to the NHS waiting list tracker.

Until this started Dr Usha Prasad who had been there since 2010 had seen 15,000 patients and had no complaints. If she had been reinstated the waiting list might not be so high and more patients would have been treated. And all this taxpayers money would not have been wasted if the trust had decided to use their own hr management to sort this out without going to a tribunal.

Councillor Ross Garrod, Labour leader of Merton Council

Meanwhile the growing deficit has led the trust to plan closing St Helier’s emergency department, maternity services and children’s in patient services provoking fury from residents. Councillor Ross Garrod, leader of Merton council, has called for re-assessment of the impact of this and a campaign group has been set up to fight the proposals. The website is here.

It’s time the trust got its priorities right. Stop spending hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting whistleblowers and spend more time and energy in running your services better.

Please donate to my blog so I can continue my forensic reporting on cases like Usha’s.

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

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

Posted on by

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

Judge insists whistleblower Dr Prasad £180,000 cost hearing must go ahead despite her GP’s warning of mental stress

Posted on by
Acting regional employment judge Omar Khalil

A senior employment judge has intervened to try and force whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad, who is now ill, to attend the Croydon costs hearing on Wednesday where she will face a £180,000 bill after losing an employment tribunal case.

Judge Omar Khalil has ignored a letter from her GP warning that she is under severe mental stress after years of appearances before employment tribunals, being referred to the General Medical Council which exonerated her but then lead to an internal inquiry run by the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust which tried to brand her as ” unfit for purpose” as a human being because it had to say she was an excellent doctor.

Her disclosure that the trust covered up an ” avoidable death” of a heart patient at the trust by not reporting it to the coroner was confirmed by Dr Richard Bogle, the head of cardiology , during an employment tribunal hearing.

But judge Tony Hyams-Parish, mindful that there are no records kept of tribunal hearings, expunged this disclosure in his judgement which rejected all her claims.

Dr Usha Prasad has asked for a postponement because she doesn’t feel well enough or capable of defending herself against expensive lawyers hired at the taxpayers’ expense by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust. She hasn’t the money now to employ a barrister to defend her at the hearing.

Dr P Bailey, her GP in Wakefield has written to the costs tribunal saying “”She is experiencing physical and emotional signs of distress…. she does not feel in an appropriate state of mind at present to represent herself in the process currently.”

“… I would be grateful if her current mental state was taken into account regarding scheduling and potential postponement.”

The regional judge and tribunal are refusing to take any notice of the GP’s plea.

In reply Lynn Head, for the tribunal says today:

“Acting Regional Judge Khalil has asked me to write to the parties.
The claimant’s application to postpone the Costs hearing listed for 23 and 24 August 2023 is refused.
The Hearing has been listed since 8 March 2023 and the dates should thus have been reserved from receipt of that notice.
“The Tribunal has previously addressed that an outstanding EAT appeal relating to liability is not a reason in itself not to proceed with a Costs Hearing. The question of enforcement of any Costs Order (if made) is a separate consideration pending an outstanding appeal.
“The claimant’s request for notes has also received judicial consideration previously, more than once. No details have been proved of the claimant’s important meeting.

“The claimant could have provided dates of unavailability of his counsel (shortly after the Tribunal indicated it would be listing a Costs Hearing (17 February 2023), as the respondent did, but the claimant did not do so.
The Tribunal has considered the claimant’s medical evidence dated 18 August 2023 but in the light of the listing of this Hearing since 8 March 2023, the claimant could and should have made arrangements for alternative representation if her previous Counsel was unavailable. A postponement would cause a considerable delay before the panel could reconvene. That is not an overriding objective. The Liability Hearing took place in November 2021.”
At this stage it is not clear whether Dr Prasad can or will attend the hearing. The presiding judge will then have to decide what to do.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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