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



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

The Dekagram: 20th May 2024

We trust that our readers have been enjoying the Spring sunshine; the team have spent their time in the sun wisely, reading cases so you don’t have to. First we noted a decision which considers the interplay between English and Scottish guardianship; secondly we read…

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

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

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


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