Many thanks for your message and getting in touch with me. 

Details of my case is on the YouTube (see below). 

I had a chest pain around 2 weeks into my hearing in Manchester and I went to North Manchester General Hospital. 

It was there that the ED consultant then rushed me into resus and gave me ACS treatment because there was ECG changes- I heard him say mild STEMI and raised troponin.

He then contacted the cardiologist at Manchester Royal Infirmary and I was blue lighted to the Cath lab. 

It's was really one of the most scary moments of my life because I felt was going to die. 

On getting there, they did a FAST scan on Heart and I was told my heart was abnormal.

After discussion with the consultant, they decided that I need an urgent Angiogram and I was rushed to the theatre. 

They went through my right hand and it was the most painful moment of my life as I was awake. It felt like my hand was going to explode and I kept crying, screaming that my right hand is painful.

After the procedure which I feel lasted forever, I was told there was no Blockage and it was likely spasm. 

I was later transfered to recovery where I was told that I have an undiagnosed High Blood pressure.

After several hours, I was later transferred to Acute Cardiac Centre where I was in BP medications and continuous cardiac monitoring. 

The MPTS was informed of what happened and it was postponed next day. 

They wanted a letter from the cardiologist who came later due to lengthy ward round. 

I was constantly under pressure from MPTS to provide evidence that i am I am Hospital, that I was crying as they couldn't wait for the cardiologist to see me.

There were lots of phones from my solicitor telling me they need a letter from me ASAP. 

I was crying because they made me feel like I was lying to avoid the hearing. I later got a letter around noon which was sent to mpts. I had echocardiogram and later invasive echocardiogram next day. 

I was told that I had an abnormal large Heart likely due to undiagnosed Hypertension. 

The mpts wanted to know when I will be health free in other to continue. 

After 3 days in the acute cardiac centre at Manchester Royal Infirmary, the traumatic experience was too much for me to handle, thus I sent an email to mpts giving consent to complete the hearing without me since they have all the evidence they need. 

I was discharged after 3 days on medication to slow down my heart and control my Blood pressure. The cardiologist said she has arranged an outpatient MRI of the heart and will see me after its done. 

I was taken home and saw my GP next day with the discharged letter.

The GP wrote a letter to mpts after reading the discharge letter and advised mpts that I need rest and strongly avoid any stress and not to attend any further hearing. 

The mpts came back and said they will continue next year 2023 for another 8 days( end of February till March 2023). 

I have informed them that I won't be able to attend any further hearing because its so much to bear. 

I attended 2 hearing in 2018. 

I attended 7 days Hearing in Manchester in June 2019 and 8 days in Manchester in January 2020. 

I attended 1 day at the High Court in London 2021 and now 12 days in October 2022. The High Court ordered me to pay GMC £26,500 and I dont have such amount.

It is the worst feeling anyone can face( like am on Death Row) and I don't like that feeling and would never wish it even on my enemies. 

After these traumatic events, I have started my counselling to enable me to cope. My GP has prescribed strong sleeping tablets to help me sleep. 

I just want to be left alone. I want my life back to the best normal it can be( my wife left me almost 4 years ago with my kids and we are now going through divorce). 

I can't even perform my duty as a Father anymore and my kids can't forgive me. 

I just want to be left alone.

Evelyn Mensah• 2ndClinical Lead for Ophthalmology & WRES Expert at London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust1w • Edited • 1 week ago Follow This weekend:-

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/evelyn-mensah-33675a33_racism-antiracism-twotiergmc-activity-6997323801990430720-xCPJ/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android

The editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) said this👉🏽 “The GMC has become an adversarial organisation, where lawyers and bureaucrats are pitted against doctors, where success is seen in conviction rates rather than better outcomes for patients, and where *discrimination* is so *institutionalised* that it is almost impossible to acknowledge. All this is delivered without compassion and with little common sense.”

Professor Everington & Professor Esmail said this👉🏽 "If the GMC was subject to public scrutiny in the same way that the Care Quality Commission assesses healthcare organisations and general practices, it would be rated as inadequate and subject to special measures,"

I agree but they missed out the words *RACIAL* & *RACIST*

#Racism is the *burning* thread that runs through the complaints, disciplinary and referral pathway for doctors in the NHS from 🎬 to 🔚

Black, Asian and minority ethnic doctors are 3x more likely to be referred to the General Medical Council (GMC) compared to our white counterparts. The majority of the cases are dismissed. Referrals to the GMC cause morbidity and mortality. All we ask for is *parity*

Today, was the 4th Saturday that we stood in solidarity with Dr Valentine Udoye. A Black doctor persecuted by the GMC for a case dismissed by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal 5 years ago. Yet it continues since the GMC appealed the decision made by the MPTS. Please join us next week if you can ⤵️

✊🏿 Same time - 10.30 for 1 hour
✊🏾 Same place - GMC, 350 Euston Rd
✊🏽 Same day - every Saturday
✊🏼 Every week - Silent Vigil
✊🏻 Until GMC drops case against Dr Udoye 

 https://blmhealthandcareblog.com/2021/06/10/an-over-enthusiastic-and-ultimately-flawed-frolic-understanding-the-charges-and-applying-kuzmin/

BLM  Healthcare  June 10, 2021 4 Minutes

General Medical Council v Dr Azubuike Udoye [2021] EWCA 1511 (Admin)

Dr Udoye appeared before the MPTS facing charges of dishonesty. He did not give evidence and the case concluded with a finding of no misconduct. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the GMC utilised its right of appeal, under s.40 of the Medical Act 1983. Mr Justice Holgate had no difficulty in upholding the appeal and remitting a number of allegations for consideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.

The facts of the case were that Dr Udoye qualified as a doctor in Nigeria and later sought inclusion in the GMC’s GP register. Having unsuccessfully sought a certificate of eligibility for GP registration, he joined a GP Induction and Refresher scheme (a scheme for doctors previously included in the GP register whereas Dr Udoye had never been included).

The relevant allegations before the MPTS related to Dr Udoye’s completion of the scheme’s registration form (in which he stated that he was included in the GMC’s GP register) and practising as a GP during the scheme. The Tribunal concluded:

• that Dr Udoye had not practised as a GP as his work was supervised meaning that he had not practised as an “independent” GP; and
• that the GMC had not proved on the balance of probabilities that Dr Udoye had acted dishonestly when completing the registration form as the evidence in terms of a dishonest or innocent explanation was finely balanced.

The GMC appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the allegation that Dr Udoye had not practised as a GP and that the Tribunal had not given proper consideration to whether an adverse inference should be drawn from Dr Udoye’s decision not to give evidence.

Mr Justice Holgate held that the Tribunal had erred in adding the word “independent” into the allegation that Dr Udoye had practised as a GP, there was no justification for adding this word and that the language of the allegation was “perfectly straightforward and clear”.

It is set out that the GMC’s position regarding the meaning of the charge was made clear in writing, in response to a submission of no case to answer, with that response being adopted in closing submissions. Mr Justice Holgate comments that it is a pity that the Tribunal did not confirm that they had the document in question and that they had re-read the relevant passage before the hearing concluded. A pity indeed given the cost of the appeal process and the inevitable delay and costs arising from the need for a further MPTS hearing.

It was also held that the Tribunal’s reasoning was flawed in respect of the application of the principles set out in R (Kuzmin) v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 2129 (Admin) when considering whether or not an adverse inference should be drawn.

Kuzmin established that an adverse inference can be drawn from a registrant refusing to give evidence. It was held that whether to draw an adverse inference would be dependent upon the facts of the case but that generally, no adverse inference would be appropriate unless the following criteria are met:

i) a prima facie case to answer has been established;

ii) the individual has been given appropriate notice and an appropriate warning that, if he does not give evidence, then such an inference may be drawn; and an opportunity to explain why it would not be reasonable for him to give evidence and, if it is found that he has no reasonable explanation, an opportunity to give evidence;

iii) there is no reasonable explanation for his not giving evidence; and

iv) there are no other circumstances in the particular case which would make it unfair to draw such an inference.

It is in considering (iv) that the Tribunal went astray as they are said to have “embarked upon a full evaluation of the merits of the allegation disregarding the issue of whether an adverse inference should be drawn”.

Mr Justice Holgate held that it is plain that criterion (iv) is only concerned with procedural unfairness (with all of the Kuzmin criteria being rooted in principles of fairness) and that a Tribunal should not examine all of the evidence for or against the allegation to decide whether the criterion has been met.

Should it be established that the criteria set out in Kuzmin are met, the Tribunal should go on to consider whether it is appropriate to draw an adverse inference and can at that stage take into account important public interest considerations. Should an adverse inference be drawn, that is one factor to be taken into account when deciding whether the allegation is proved. A decision should be made as to how much weight is to be given to the adverse inference, with it being possible that no significant weight will be given. When considering the weight to be attached, a Tribunal should consider the impact of there being no opportunity to test the credibility of the registrant’s evidence or the merits of any innocent explanation that has been put forward by way of submissions alone.

Mr Justice Holgate held that in view of equal weight having been given by the Tribunal to all other matters for and against the allegation, the issue of whether an adverse inference should be drawn and how much weight should be given to it was “obviously material” and that the Tribunal’s reasoning, in disregarding that process, was legally flawed.

In conclusion, it seems that the Tribunal strayed into interpreting and adding to the allegations when there was no need to do so. Further, faced with a possible dishonest or innocent explanation and without the benefit of the registrant giving evidence, the Tribunal failed to follow the careful, staged approach that is required when a registrant declines to give evidence. A Tribunal must consider procedural fairness at the outset then decide whether to draw an adverse inference before assessing the evidence and whether or not an allegation is proved. Conflating these processes will only lead to trouble and potentially a fresh hearing before another Tribunal.  

Laura Smith, Associate, BLM
laura.smith@blmlaw.com