Mohammad Y Naseer
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
(as amended and found proved at the final hearing)
While employed as an Orthotist by RSL Steeper Ltd you were on placement at Stafford General Hospital working from Cannock Chase Appliance Unit and
2. On 18 August 2009 Patient B attended an appointment with you in order to have an AFO, which YD considered to be giving Patient B inadequate support, recast and
i. You initially failed to recast and used the original cast and
ii. You only recast the AFO when directly challenged by YD.
4. On 18 August 2009 at a follow up appointment for Patient D you were asked by parents to recast AFO’s that were too wide and
i. you suggested padding the AFO’s out instead and
5. On 11 August 2009 you fitted AFO’s for Patient E and
i. On 17 August 2010 when a Physiotherapist LW conducted a home visit to Patient E’s home, LW noted that
1. you had not trimmed Patient E’s splints to fit correctly and
2. you had made the back slab sections of the AFO’s too short and
7. On 17 September 2009 LW1, the parent of Patient G, attended the hospital Appliance & Orthopaedic Department with AW to collect Piedro shoes that had previously been ordered and when it was established that the shoes were the wrong size, Patient G’s parent was referred to you for interim advice and
i. You told Patient G’s parent that the shoes were fine and there would be no problem without conducting any assessment and
ii. When AW displayed unease and discomfort wearing the shoes, you continued to insist that the shoes were fine before eventually agreeing to order a pair in the right size 3
iii. When Patient G’s parent asked for advice in what to do while waiting for the correct shoes you shrugged your shoulders and said it was up to Patient G’s parent
iv. You told Patient G’s parent to hurry up while she was trying to pick a style for the correct sized shoes from the catalogue
8. On 21 July 2009 you attended an assessment at Sherbrook School for Patient H and ii. You were overheard to call Patient H a ‘lazy little bugger’
9. In early July you received a referral from an Orthopaedics Consultant, Mr Babu, that instructed you to measure for Piedro boots and cast for AFO’s for Patient I and iii. You saw Patient I at a follow-up appointment and
1. You put the Piedro boots on the wrong feet and
2. You refused to change the Piedro boots over when Patient I’s parents pointed out that the boots were on the wrong feet
3. You repeatedly told Patient I to walk properly and stop being silly
10. On 19 or 20 August 2009 you received a referral to fit Patient J for Piedro boots and
i. You incorrectly told Patient J’s mother that the diagnosis of a habitual toe-walking problem was wrong and
ii. You incorrectly told Patient J’s mother that Patient J required an orthopaedic referral to be assessed for ‘metal braces’
11. On 20 August 2009 you received a referral to supply a specific insole for Patient K and
i. Without explanation you told Patient K’s mother she could not have the insoles
ii. Your manner and tone towards Patient K’s mother was reported as ‘extremely rude’
12. On 27 July 2009 the mother of Patient L stated to a physiotherapist during a home visit that
i. At an assessment some days before the 27 July 2009 your manner towards Patient L’s mother was rude and impatient and
ii. You would not initially allow Patient L’s mother to choose a colour or pattern for Patient L’s next ankle-foot orthoses until Patient L’s mother insisted that she knew that she was allowed to choose from the catalogue and
iv. You initially refused to cast the second leg until Patient L’s mother insisted that she did not want to book another appointment 4
13. On 26 August 2009 Patient L’s mother complained about your professional manner to the effect that
i. at an appointment with Patient L, his mother and physiotherapist ST you had repeatedly asked what time it was and was it 1 0’clock (the end of the appointment) yet because it was your lunchtime and
1. the splints you provided for Patient L were too narrow for his feet, causing pain to Patient L, to which you responded solely by heating the plastic and bending or distorting it manually and
2. the boots that had been ordered were too small for the splints
3. you offered a pair of boots as an alternative that were much too large
ii. when the parents requested a further appointment which was made for 2 September 2009 you
2. explained the problems identified in the splints on Patient L being difficult to cast and Patient L being badly controlled by his mother
3. spent approximately 20 minutes of the appointment in describing appointment booking system issues to the physiotherapist
4. left the session before recasting Patient L to collect evidence in support of your contentions about the appointment booking system causing a further 5 minute delay
iii. When Patient L, the parents and the physiotherapist attended again at 8.15 you rushed them, telling them you had a very busy day
15. On 2 September 2009 Patient N had an appointment to refit Piedro boots and insoles that you had been asked to fit in May 2009 and
i. When Patient N’s mother asked whether you were going to fit the insoles, you became aggressive, told Patient N’s mother that it was a ridiculous idea and then measured for insoles anyway.
17. Between 22 and 25 September 2009 the Physiotherapy service asked the mother of Patient P to present a complaint about the sarcastic tone of voice and unhelpful attitude you had displayed towards her at an appointment on 22 September 2009
18. You fitted a Patient Q with foot splints which were too long, which you then refused to adjust, causing Patient Q pain
19. The matters referred to above constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence 5
20. By reason of that misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired
1. The Panel was informed by the hearings officer that notice of a review hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered address by letter dated 30 July 2015. Subsequently a Voluntary Removal Agreement was signed by Mr Nasser around 25 August to be operative from the date of this hearing. The Panel was satisfied that notice had been properly served as required by the Rules.
Proceeding in absence:
2. Ms Healy applied for the hearing to proceed in Mr Naseer, the Registrant’s, absence. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the Panel’s discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence should only be exercised with the utmost care and caution.
3. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and there was no evidence that he would attend an adjourned hearing. The Panel noted that the purpose of this hearing was to consider the terms of a Voluntary Removal Agreement agreed between the HCPC and the Registrant which had been signed by him. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest and in the Registrant’s interests that the agreement should be considered expeditiously. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
4. At the relevant times the Registrant was a registered Orthotist employed by RSL Steeper Ltd who provided Orthotic Services and devices to hospitals, clinics and special schools. Between July and October 2009 the Registrant worked at a number of hospitals in Burton, Lichfield, Tamworth and Stafford. During the Registrant’s employment at those hospitals a number of complaints were received relating to the Registrant’s interaction with patients, competence and note-taking.
5. Following the substantive hearing of the Allegations, the Registrant’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired by reason of misconduct and lack of competence. A conditions of practise order for 18 months was imposed.
6. On review of that order on 22 January 2013, it was found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and the conditions of practise order was extended to a period of 24 months. A further review Panel on 30 August 2013 found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and imposed a new conditions of practise order for a period of 12 months upon expiry of the existing order.
7. On 5 September 2014 the conditions of practise order was again reviewed and a suspension order was imposed for 12 months.
8. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Healy. She submitted that the Registrant had accepted the findings made against him following his request to be removed from the Register. Ms Healy further submitted that the HCPC was satisfied that voluntary removal from the Register was an appropriate disposal of this case and would protect the public and was in the public interest, given its effect was the same as a strike-off from the Register following a finding of impairment of fitness to practice.
9. The Panel first reminded themselves of the guidance offered in the HCPC Practice Note entitled “Disposal of Cases by Consent”. The Panel noted that it had the power to adopt one of two courses of action:
i. to deal with the case in an expedited manner by approving the proposal set out in the Voluntary Removal Agreement;
ii. to reject the proposal and set the case down for a further review hearing.
10. The Panel had regard to the circumstances that the failings found concerned events in 2009 and 2010 and that the substantive hearing concluded on 8 September 2011 when a conditions of practice order was imposed. Since that original order, the matter has been reviewed on no less than four occasions at six monthly intervals. The Panel noted the findings of the last review Panel on 5 September 2014, in imposing a suspension order for 12 months, that, given the Registrant’s wish to suspend his registration and to cease to practise, further conditions of practice were not appropriate.
11. The Panel considered that the failings had been serious and gave rise to concerns in relation to the safety of service users and the wider public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and in upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel was satisfied that the public and the public interest had been protected by the finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired and by the successive sanctions imposed.
12. The Panel determined that consenting to the Voluntary Removal Agreement which has a similar effect to a striking off order, would adequately address the public protection issues in this case, as it prevents the Registrant from practising or applying to re-join the Register for a period of five years. The Panel noted that the Registrant had endeavoured to comply with the conditions of practise, but unfortunately was unable over a period of time to comply fully. The Registrant had made clear in communications with the HCPC his intention to stop practicing as an Orthotist so it is in the interests of the Registrant and in the wider public interest to conclude this matter today.
13. For all these reasons, the current suspension is revoked and the Voluntary Removal Agreement dated 25 August 2015 is approved.
History of Hearings for Mohammad Y Naseer
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|01/09/2015||Conduct and Competence Committee||Review Hearing||Voluntary Removal agreed|