DR ADE M HASSAN

(GMC No 4237039)

Appellant

and

WESTMINSTER PRIMARY CARE TRUST

Respondent

__________

Regulation 10(6) of the National Health Service (Performer’s List) Regulations 2002 provides that:

Where the performer cannot demonstrate that he has performed the services, which those included in the relevant performer’s list perform, within the area of the Primary Care Trust during the preceding 12 months, it may remove him from its performer’s list.

The PCT (Primary Care Trust) therefore has a discretion as to whether to remove a GP (General Practitioner) from a performer’s list on the grounds set down above.

On appeal the FHSAA (Family Health Service Appeal Authority) may make any decision which the PCT could have made. (Regulation 15(3) of the National Health Service (Performer’s List) Regulations 2002)

The Panel met on 10 March 2005. As neither party attended this hearing, directions were issued. The hearing proceeded on 17 March 2005 with both parties attending.

The Panel concluded that Dr Hassan had not performed services within the area of the Westminster PCT during the period 12 November 2003 to 12 November 2004. Time runs from the date of the PCT’s decision – 16 November 2004. (Bundle page 25 Letter Dr Robinson to Dr Hassan 16 November 2004) Dr Hassan also confirmed this when he spoke to the Panel.

Rita Altana (Medical Contracts Manager employed by the Westminster PCT) gave evidence about the procedures followed by the PCT to remove Dr Hassan from its Performers List. These procedures were outlined in Dr Robinson’s letter to Dr Hassan. (Bundle page 21-22 Dr Robinson to Dr Hassan 21 September 2004) These procedures appeared to comply with the provisions contained in Regulations 10(8) to 10(14) National Health Service (Performers List) Regulations 2004. There was uncertainty about whether Dr Hassan had had an opportunity to put his case under Regulation 10(8)(d). He maintained that he had asked for an opportunity to put his case at an oral hearing. Rita Altana had no recollection of this.

There was doubt as to whether Dr Hassan had been given the the opportunity to ‘put his case’ to the PCT. Certainly when he put his case to the Panel he was able to demonstrate that he had a continuing commitment to provide services in the PCT area. If there had been an oral hearing in October 2004 then it may be that these issues would have been resolved at that time. The Panel note that the papers supplied to the FHSAA evidence a history of inadequate communication in this case. The Panel do not however regard this as determinative of the appeal.

The Panel regarded the following as determinative of the appeal:

The purpose of Regulation 10(6) is not to deal with performance issues, and therefore all the information about Dr Hassan’s performance contained in the correspondence seen by the Panel was not relevant to the Panel’s decision. (Bundle 73 Letter Dr Robinson to FHSAA 14 March 2005)

Dr Hassan worked in the PCT area on 11 March 2005. This was confirmed by Rita Altana who telephoned the GP practice in question. This evidenced continuing service, and a continuing commitment to provide services in the future to this particular PCT, which the Panel regarded as critical in reviewing the application of Rule 10(6). Dr Robinson also acknowledged that this factor was relevant in making a decision under Regulation 10(6). (Bundle 73 Letter Dr Robinson to FHSAA 14 March 2005)

The FHSAA, on appeal, may make any decision which the PCT could have made. The Panel decided that on the basis of the information available to them, which was not all available to the PCT on 16 November 2004, that Dr Hassan’s appeal should be allowed.

10. Either party to these proceedings has the right to appeal this decision under and by virtue of Sec II Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.

DATED this…………day of………………2005

……………………………

Chairman