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

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.

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”.

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.

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.