Welcome to the September 2019 edition of Capsticks’ Regulatory Newsletter.

In this edition we have reviewed the following cases: 

• Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social care v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Ndlovu [2019] EWHC 1181 (Admin) - where the Court held that a panel had been wrong not to find current impairment on public protection grounds in the case of a nurse who had lied to a Coroner and during an internal investigation regarding her assessment of a patient who later died. 
• Kern v General Osteopathic Council [2019] EWHC 111 (Admin) - where the Court upheld a decision to erase from the register an osteopath who had a sexual relationship with a patient.
• Beard v General Osteopathic Council [2019] EWHC 1561 (Admin) - where the Court held that the prolonged and hostile questioning of the osteopath by one of the panel members was a serious procedural error which rendered the proceedings unfair.
• Sanusi v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC1388 (Admin) - where the High Court held it would “rarely be unfair” for a panel to proceed straight to a decision on sanction rather than pausing to invite the attendance of a doctor who has voluntarily absented himself.
• Blakely v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 905 (Admin) - where the Court held a review panel had been correct in deciding that a doctor had not demonstrated sufficient insight and that it had been right to conclude that a further suspension was required.
• R (on the application of Kuzmin) v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 2129 (Admin) - where the Court held that a healthcare disciplinary tribunal does have the power to draw an adverse inference from a registrant’s failure to give evidence.

Read the September 2019 edition of Capsticks' Regulatory Newsletter here.