GMC Exposed

Web www.nhsexposed.com

Email to a friend

What Really Happened to Dr Jennifer Colman
Chapter Five

Employment with Central Nottinghamshire Area Health Authority
Kings Mill Hospital

Dr Colman was employed in her second Pre-Registration House Officer post at Kings Mill Hospital Sutton in Ashfield from 1 February 1985 for six months. During that time Dr Colman was suspended arbitrarily and without any reasons being given and in breach of the Department of Health guidelines HM61112 by Dr Alan Mousley, a District Medical Officer. This is his letter:

Click to enlarge

(1) Stuart Morgan of the BMA wrote on 13 June 1985 and took issue with Alan Mousley and said:
“Your letter of 6 June 1985 does not say under what authority you have suspended Dr Colman-Archer. I shall be obliged if you would kindly advise me under which procedure this suspension was implemented.”

(2) Stuart Morgan wrote for a second time on 19 June 1985 and said:
“Dr Colman-Archer has made a written statement which reads as follows:
“I an enclosing a copy of Alan Mousley’s letter to me dated 6 June. I feel it contains some very contentious material. It is also inaccurate and in places untrue,

“On 6 June 1985 at 1.10pm I was on Harvey Ward having a telephone conversation with the neurosurgical registrar at Queen’s Medical Centre Nottingham when my bleep went off. I interrupted my Nottingham conversation to answer the bleep and it was an administrator asking me to attend at his office at 1.30pm that day and that I could bring a friend or a BMA representative. I said that I would not be able to say at that point whether I could attend at 1.30pm as I was tied up but would phone him back, I then returned to my phone conversation with Nottingham concerning a CAT scan. My bleep bleeped several times around 1.20-1.25 pm as I was “on take” for medical emergencies. One of the people was the administrator and I was busy still with a patient and left my ward sister to answer the bleep. I then went to the doctor’s office on Haldane Ward and phoned my registrar concerning the administrator and Alan Mousley. At that point Mousley came onto the Ward (Haldane) and told me I was suspended immediately. I gave him my personal bleep and the cardiac arrest bleep. I later spoke with my registrar and David Greatbatch who said I was suspended on full salary and I then returned to my home in Norfolk”

“You have not told me what was the occasion or the circumstances “When it was considered unwise or undesirable for an employee to remain on duty”. I am concerned that Dr Colman-Archer should have been suspended quite so arbitrarily and I shall be pleased if you would kindly advise me why it was considered unwise for her to remain on duty.

“The rules of natural justice demand that an employee who is deprived of her livelihood or profession should be told what are the allegations, who made them, and be given an opportunity to defend herself. It is of fundamental importance that the rules of natural justice are not breached. I shall be pleased, therefore, if you would kindly advise me of the allegations made, by whom they were made and when they were made.

“Additionally, if it is not considered unwise I shall be pleased if the suspension could be lifted.”

(3) Le Brasseur & Bury also wrote on 2nd July 1985 to Alan Mousley and said:

“The Medical Protection Society Limited
“Re: Dr Colman-Archer

“We are instructed by the above named Society to act on behalf of their member Dr J. Colman-Archer. We understand that Dr Colman-Archer was suspended from duty on full pay on 6th. June 1985 although she informs us that no reasons for her suspension were given in writing. We have a copy of your letter to Dr Colman-Archer dated 14th June and a copy of Dr Kochanowski’s letter to you of 18th June. It seems that the indication you gave n your letter of 14th June with regard to Dr Kochanowski’s opinion of the matter was wholly incorrect and that Dr Kochanowski was in fact supportive of Dr Colman-Archer, the junior team were under considerable stress and that the matter was not important enough to have been treated this way.

“Dr Colman-Archer now finds herself in a position where she is not able to complete her six months job and accordingly will be unable to receive her certificate of job completion. In our view the suspension has been wrongly imposed in view of the fact that her own consultant was not consulted prior to the enforcement. In our view Dr Colman-Archer should be allowed to continue with her duties. Should this be regarded by the Central Nottinghamshire health Authority as unviable, she would be prepared to be transferred to another hospital for the period of 2 months which represents the length of time since the suspension which her job would have left to run.”

Clearly from the letters passing there had been a breach of Dr Colman’s contract. Immediately and in view of the obvious unfairness with which the Dr Mousley knew he had treated Dr Colman, and that he had deprived her of her opportunity of finishing her training, which was challenged by solicitors and the BMA, he then also decided to report Dr Colman to the GMC in June 1985, by way of a reprisal action and for no other reason than to injure her by depriving her of her training and therefore her full registration. In 1986 solicitors acting for Dr Colman and the MPS issued a Writ in the High Court in London and settled the pleadings, and after an abortive strike out, and in spite of the GMC disciplinary findings against her, the matter was settled in Dr Colman’s favour in 1991.

In any event and in spite of everything Dr Colman was also written up from that job by Dr Keith Sands and Dr Kochanowski. However Dr Kochanowski has also written to the GMC on18 February 2002, and said that considerable pressure was brought to bear on him to declare Dr Colman so incompetent as to not write her up which he declined to do. He said that he also suffered consequences. The Health Authority finally got rid of him also in 1987 and he never worked as a substantive consultant again. The fact that Dr Kochanowski was subjected to considerable pressure in order to injure Dr Colman suggests an underlying conspiracy and intention to injure her, and in any event to breach her contract and act in bad faith. Under all those circumstances it would be impossible to argue that those actions taken against Dr Colman then were right, lawful or fair or in the public interest or that the GMC was in any way correct to prefer charges against Dr Colman over a year later on 22 July 1986 by way of retribution for issuing a writ against Central Notts Area Heath Authority.

It was also clear to the GMC that under their own provisions they ought to have referred this whole episode back to the HA for resolution before becoming involved. That is the way to proceed and is admitted by the GMC. In any event it has to be remembered that Dr Colman was written up for this job by both her consultants and therefore it is unreasonable to suggest that there was anything for the GMC to investigate. As well as this Sister Mary Burdon, who was the sole focus of one of the charges later brought by the GMC against Dr Colman, said at the hearing and also still maintains, that she never made a witness statement against Dr Colman for the GMC.

Email to a friend

[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views]

All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated.
No material from this site may be copied, reproduced or stored, electronically or otherwise,
without the express written permission of NHS Exposed.
Where material is reproduced from this site without the express written permission of NHS Exposed, NHS Exposed reserves the right to recover a fee of £100 per copy from the individuals and / or organisations concerned. Use of this site, and / or reproduction of material from this site without the written permission of NHS Exposed, will be taken as acceptance of these terms and conditions.
All material is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act.