An unusual problem with the GMC

A consultant member of MPS received a letter from the GMC, which raised doubts about his eligibility for inclusion on the Specialist Register - a pre-requisite for appointment to an NHS consultant post.

When the Register first started, the doctor had been included because he held a substantive consultant post. However, information sent to the GMC by the Royal College of Psychiatrists suggested that this had been a locum appointment rather than a substantive post.

As a member of MPS, the psychiatrist turned to us for help and we started correspondence with the GMC on his behalf. As it happened, what at first seemed a relatively straightforward matter turned out to be a protracted affair that took 14 months to resolve. The issue was complicated by the amount of time that had passed since the consultant had held his NHS post, as the hospital had since destroyed most of their relevant personnel records.

However, the consultant had retained some documentary evidence that, in our view, clearly indicated his post had been a substantive one. We submitted this to the GMC, but they were not convinced. A prolonged and frustrating correspondence took place over the ensuing months. The situation came no nearer to resolution until a solicitor wrote to the GMC, threatening legal action if they did not resolve the issue.

The solicitor’s letter provoked a speedier response from the GMC in which they somewhat churlishly informed the consultant that, ‘From the information we have obtained to date, we do not intend to pursue this matter further.’