A GP’s failure to refer a patient for specialist psychiatric treatment did not amount to misconduct or impairment

News

28/04/2016

The GMC alleged that Dr. T had failed to refer a patient suffering from bipolar disorder to a specialist consultant in psychiatry in breach of the NICE Guidelines and in breach of his duty. It was also alleged that Dr. T had prescribed lamotrigine outside the British National Formulary and in breach of the NICE Guidelines. The patient committed suicide by hanging himself in a park.

Following the inquest, Dr. T was referred to the GMC by the Coroner for failing to refer the patient for treatment.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal concluded that Dr. T should not only have referred the patient, but he should not have prescribed lamotrigine outside the BNF.  It was held that the patient needed specialist treatment.

The GMC submitted that Dr. T’s failings amounted to significant and serious failings. It was submitted that Dr. T’s care of the patient fell seriously below expected standards, posed a risk to patient safety and therefore amounted to misconduct.

Following a highly contested hearing before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal, which included hearing evidence from a number of experts, including Professor David Taylor, Professor in Psychopharmacology, Dr. Kahtan, Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr. Longwill, General Practitioner and Dr. Bicknell, General Practitioner, the Tribunal upheld submissions on behalf of Dr. T that, as a matter of law and fact, his failings did not amount to professional misconduct.  

The Tribunal held that even though Dr. T (a) should have referred the patient for specialist treatment, (b) should not have prescribed lamotrigine and (c) was in breach of Good Medical Practice (2006), they did not consider that they were sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.

It therefore followed that Dr. T’s fitness to practise was not impaired by reason of misconduct.

Simon Butler was instructed on behalf of BSG Solicitors LLP to represent Dr T.

Latest News & Events

Success for Andrew Warnock KC, Jack Harding and Gurion Taussig in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that claims for compensation by a man who killed three people, but was acquitted by a jury in the Crown Court on the grounds of insanity, are barred by the doctrine of illegality. The Claimant, Mr Lewis-Ranwell, sought damages from…

The Dekagram: 19th January 2026

In this week’s Dekagram Dominique Smith examines a recent decision of the Court of Appeal considering and endorsing 90:10 split liability offers (contrary to the received wisdom following the decision of the High Court in Mundy v TUI [2023] EWHC 385 (Ch); and Robbie Parkin…

Kerry Nicholson writes about Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the implications for secondary victims in cross border cases for the Journal of Personal Injury Law

Kerry analyses Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the Supreme Court’s attempt to impose coherence on decades of caselaw from McLoughlin, Alcock and Frost through Walters, Shorter and Ronayne. She then asks the hard question for modern travel law practitioners: what, if anything, can claimants do…

© Deka Chambers 2026

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)