Allegations though "serious" were not "potential gross misconduct"
A psychiatrist who read confidential patient notes on a train has won her case at the Supreme Court.
The NHS Trust director’s classification of the doctor’s alleged patient confidentiality breach as “potential gross misconduct” was “a fundamental breach of contract”, the Supreme Court said, in West London Mental Health NHS Trust v Chhabra [2013] UKSC 80.
Dr Chhabra, a consultant psychiatrist, was alleged to have read patient notes and dictated patient reports to her secretary while travelling on a train. There were also allegations concerning team working. The Trust investigated the allegations under its version of the national framework on conduct, Maintaining High Professional Standards. The Medical Director then wrote to Dr Chhabra, warning her that the allegations could potentially be gross misconduct and would be dealt with in a disciplinary hearing.
Dr Chhabra sought an injunction on the basis the allegations were not serious enough to warrant a disciplinary hearing and should be dealt with informally under an internal process.
The Supreme Court found in favour of Dr Chhabra and granted the injunction. It found that the allegations, although “serious”, should not have been classified as “potential gross misconduct”.
Gary Hay, partner at Capsticks, which acted for the Trust, says: “The Supreme Court’s intervention at a micro level to conclude that the admitted breaches of confidentiality were serious but could not constitute potential gross misconduct is highly unusual.
“However, we are pleased to see the Court’s decision on the principle that, where there are mixed issues of conduct and capability, Trusts should be allowed to proceed to a conduct hearing in serious cases."
