The High Court has refused a doctor’s application to overturn a Medical Council fitness-to-practise finding and to challenge the absence of an appeal against the sanction imposed.
In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2018, Mr Justice Meenan ruled that the finding against the doctor was supported by evidence and was not irrational or unreasonable. The court also refused declarations that the statutory provisions denying an appeal against an “advice” sanction were unconstitutional or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The doctor, a medical oncology registrar at the Mid-Western Regional Hospital in Dooradoyle, faced about 30 allegations arising from a complaint to the Medical Council. After hearings in 2015, the Fitness to Practice Committee found one allegation proven: that he failed to request basic tests, including blood, urine and kidney-function tests, for a patient transferred from a Tralee hospital. The other allegations were not proven or were withdrawn.
The committee classified that failure as poor professional performance and recommended an admonishment. The Medical Council later imposed the lower sanction of advice. The judgment records that the advice did not restrict the doctor’s ability to practise.
The doctor argued that the expert evidence did not establish that the failure to request the tests, considered on its own, could amount to poor professional performance. The court reviewed the evidence, including the expert’s written report describing the tests as “vital” on the patient’s arrival. It held that the committee had evidence on which it could reach its finding. The judge stressed that judicial review is not an appeal and does not generally allow the High Court to reassess the merits of a decision.
The court also rejected the respondents’ preliminary argument that the judicial review application was out of time. It held that the proceedings were in time because the issue central to the application—the lack of an appeal following the advice sanction—did not arise until the Medical Council imposed that sanction in September 2015.
The doctor said the finding could affect his career prospects and that he had to disclose it to prospective employers while practising in the United States. The judge considered the claimed effects speculative and noted that no specific adverse employment consequences had been shown. Relying on an earlier High Court decision concerning the same statutory appeal provisions, the court rejected the constitutional claims, including arguments about equality, reputation and the right to work.
The court also refused a declaration of incompatibility under the European Convention on Human Rights Act. It concluded that the doctor had not disputed the fairness of the disciplinary procedures and was not entitled to the reliefs sought. The judgment did not quash the committee’s report or the Medical Council’s decision.