|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
Good Luck To Dr Sushant Varma Varma v Halton Hospital NHS Trust, Dr David Graham, Dr Williams, Dr Rose, Dr McNamara We all wish Dr Sushant Varma the best of luck. Dr Varma is a junior doctor from Halton Hospital, Cheshire, who was illegally suspended one year ago for leafletting his Trust. The Trust's own lawyers admitted (in documentation accidentally passed to Dr Varma) that they had breached his contract, and then attempted to pass this breach off as a deliberate response to unusual circumstances. Sushant's story can be found in the article True Lies on the UK section of www.undercovermedicine.com. Dr Varma has kept his spirits up and fought hard against the abuse of his human rights by a Trust that has already killed one diabetic patient. While the BMA have refused to provide him with legal assistance, his lawyer has done a great job in supporting him. Dr Rob Hendry of the MDDUS intervened in the early stages and did a good job of representing him. Sushant's father and mother (Dr Varma Snr and Mrs Varma) have stood by their son through the trails and tribulations of the last year. Dr Varma has indeed shown courage in the line of fire. He was featured in two newspaper articles after he saved patients while a Halton Hospital pathologist simply sat and watched. The medical profession has deserted him. The General Medical Council have attempted to assist Halton Hospital in instigating a complaint against Dr Varma, following two complaints made to them against Dr John Williams and Dr David Graham. Dr Graham, Post Graduate Dean of Mersey Deanery and Revalidation Tsar, famously made the mistake quoting a staggeringly inaccurate amount of saline in a letter to the GMC in which he accused Dr Varma of being inaccurate. The seniors at the hospital have admitted in their paperwork that all accusations against Dr Varma have been "trivial". During Dr Varma's fight against his Trust, the Trust's Dr Gerry Murphy has resigned and is currently working in Manchester Royal Infirmary. We wonder why a credible hospital such as MRI employs radiologists who, on BBC TV, manipulated the truth about applying Tipex to a dead patient's. Dr McNamara, who attempted to refer Dr Varma to a Forensic Psychaitrist despite his being declared fit to practice by two psychiatrists who were GMC assessors, has also resigned. Mr Paul Cronin, once Cheif Executive of the Trust, has joined the resignation ranks. The most notable and shocking evidence during this case is presented by Dr Varma's recent email to us (see below). It shows that Trusts attempt to silence the media in cases that make them uncomfortable. They may - or may not - be able to silence the media, but no Trust will ever silence NHS Exposed. As always, if the Trust are unhappy with the material we publish they are more than welcome to sue us - we will be delighted to see them in court! Dr Varma's favourite phrase is "May the force be with you". We hope you will all provide your support for this junior doctor. Best Wishes NHS Exposed Team Dr Varma's Email To NHS Exposed Dear NHS Exposed, I love this email from the Trust press officer saying “Although I have successfully talked a number of journalists into dropping the story I am not sure I can keep on doing so.” I wonder what other stories the authorities have stopped coming to the public domain. I always thought that stories of media suppression must be paranoia but this proves it beyond doubt. The letter from the GMC - Blake Dobson- clearly raises issues. In their letter they say “On 4 April 2003 Catherine Green Wrote to you enclosing a copy of the information that Dr Rose had sent to us and initiated you to comment on the issues raised. The information sent to you included correspondence and emails between the Trust and The Trust’s legal advisers. We should not therefore have sent to you copies of these documents as they attract professional legal privilege. “I would be grateful if you returned to the GMC, without copying, the documents contained within the legal file. That is sheer rubbish! The fact that they want them back speaks volumes. Firstly the GMC have posted them to me and they are now MY property. The Trust copied the documents, put a table of contents, passed them onto a third party- the GMC and so they have lost professional legal privilege. The fact that they passed them onto the GMC they would have KNOWN that anything they passed onto the GMC would be given to me so that is rubbish. I could have got the documents by disclosure anyway. The GMC have an obligation to send any documents that the trust sends on to them. The fact that they gave me these documents is not my fault. In my opinion this shows that the GMC are not independent, they work for the other side. I copied this file a while ago and last week sent a copy of this file among others to all the national papers, various parties abroad and in the UK. I asked these people to disseminate them widely so I dread to think how many people have seen them now. I wonder why they want these documents back. Is it because they have admitted to disobeying the rules or other things? Here is a selection of their comments: “You will see that I have not tried in any way to deny that this present suspension is in breach of contract. I think this I plainly so and that nothing would be served by attempting to deny it…(4 November 2002) “My advice however is that, on what we know at present, his claim should be vigorously resisted and that any admission of technical irregularity should be made boldly and with justification.” The Trust has admitted that the charges laid against me are trivial. The Trust lawyer goes on to say: ”Given Dr Varma’s propensity to complain and self publicise and his backing (e.g. from (name removed) who has emailed that he has a very good chance of receiving substantial compensation) he is likely to complain to an employment tribunal that he has been unfairly dismissed. We will have to justify not only the merits but also the procedural defects of our case (keeping him out of work without formal suspension.) We will need to show how bit by bit we had growing doubts about Dr Varma and because things unfolded in stages we did not take decisive action at the start, but only after substantial efforts to solve the problems informally. The early bit by bit process of discovery included the first breach of confidentiality case, (they are fine ones to talk about this) but it was mixed with questions the journalist M Jackson and doubts about his existence.. The M Jackson and other trivia points were much more significant in the employer’s mind at the time. “Therefore we will not be able to deal with the substance let alone the procedural points without the trivia, but if we excluded them from the disciplinary hearing we will be unable to use them at the employment tribunal, which I fear will jeopardise our case. Dr Varma will then rightly complain that we had this information at the time he was disciplined but failed to mention a word of it in his disciplinary and so we cannot be allowed to rely on it now as it clearly was not a deciding factor in his dismissal- in fact even not even in your mind… In fact even the chief Executive Paul Cronin has accepted in his letter of 3 October 2002 he says “Concerns became greater in January 2002 with the receipt of bizarre emails from a Matthew Jackson making claims about incidents in Dr Varma’s private life.” Indeed Dr E Rose medical director has admitted that the charges are trivial given that in his letter of 18 December 2002 “There are a large number of issues, which if taken individually are trivial, and some of them would not in the ordinary course be the subject of disciplinary hearings. However, collectively they do seem sufficient to break that duty.” Basically for one year they have suspended a doctor with a non-contractual suspension for trivial reasons. The accuser suspended a doctor on the grounds of dishonest but didn’t he admit to falsifying medical evidence and went on TV to deny doing it? Kindest of regards,
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
