Atridad S Saadat
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.
This decision has been redacted for public consumption.
1. The Panel was satisfied, on the documentary evidence provided, that in respect of the Registrant, Mr Atridad S Sadaat, proper service of notice of this hearing had been effected in accordance with the Rules. Notice of this hearing was sent by first class post to his address on the Register by letter dated 1 June 2016. The notice contained the relevant required particulars. A copy of the notice was also sent by email on the same date.
Proceeding in Absence
2. The Panel heard the application from Ms Thompson on behalf of the HCPC, to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The Registrant, although not present, was represented by Ms Sharma, who did not oppose the application.
3. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised that the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant was one that must be exercised with the utmost care and caution.
4. Having considered the circumstances, the Panel determined to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The reasons are as follows:
• Service of the appropriate notice of this hearing has been properly effected.
• The Registrant indicated that he would not be attending the hearing. He sent an email dated 9 August 2016.
• The Registrant’s interests are protected by his legal representative, Ms Sharma, who does not seek, and is not instructed to seek an adjournment on his behalf.
• There is a public interest in proceeding.
• In all the circumstances, the Panel determined that it was appropriate to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.
Hearing in Private
5. The Panel considered whether the hearing should be held in private.
6. The Panel heard submissions from both parties and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised the Panel of the procedural rules.
7. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to sit in private for the entirety of the hearing, in order to protect the private life of the Registrant.
8. The Registrant was employed by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (the Trust) as a locum Biomedical Scientist. He worked at the University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire (the Hospital) and was on a two week trial employment period.
9. During that trial period. His employment was terminated and he was referred to the HCPC by the Trust.
10. The Registrant engaged with the HCPC and provided information regarding his health.
Decision on the Facts
Decision on Statutory Ground
Decision on Impairment
11. The Panel next went on to consider whether his fitness to practise is currently impaired as a consequence of his health.
12. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the Practice Note on Impairment, and in particular the two elements of impairment, namely the ‘personal component’ and the ‘public component’
13. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant recognised that he was not, at the present time, fit to practise.
14. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
15. The Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made.
Decision on Sanction
16. Having concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel went on to consider what would be the appropriate and proportionate sanction or other outcome in this case.
17. The Panel heard submissions from both parties and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the Indicative Sanctions Policy (ISP) and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel was aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the wider public interest, which includes upholding standards within the profession, together with maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulatory process.
18. The Panel does not consider the options of taking no further action, mediation or a Caution Order to be appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances of this case. None would address the identified risks to public protection.
19. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order.
20. In all the circumstances the Panel concluded that at this time there were no workable conditions which could be formulated to address the risks, and therefore a Conditions of Practice Order was not the appropriate or proportionate response in this case.
21. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel was satisfied that, at this time, a Suspension Order was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction which would both protect the public and meet the wider public interest.
22. The Panel determined that the Suspension Order should be for a period of 12 months.
23. The Panel acknowledged that such an Order would be likely to have an impact upon the Registrant. However, the Panel determined that the interests of protecting the public and upholding confidence in the profession outweighed the individual needs of the Registrant.
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Atridad S Sadaat from the Register for a period of 12 months on the date this order comes into effect.
The order imposed today will apply from 14 September 2016 (the Operative Date). This order will be reviewed again before its expiry which is on 14 September 2017.
Right of appeal:
You may appeal to the appropriate court against the decision of the Panel and the order it has made against you. In this case the appropriate court is the High Court in England and Wales.
Under Articles 29 and 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, an appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you. The order made against you will not take effect until that appeal period has expired or, if you appeal during that period, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.
An application was made by Ms Thompson on behalf of the HCPC for an Interim Suspension Order, which Ms Sharma on behalf of the Registrant did not object to.
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order, for 18 months, under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public, being otherwise in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interest. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; or (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.
History of Hearings for Atridad S Saadat
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|03/08/2020||Health Committee||Review Hearing||Struck off|
|14/08/2019||Health Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|
|03/08/2018||Health Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|
|15/08/2017||Health Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|
|16/08/2016||Health Committee||Final Hearing||Suspended|
|06/05/2016||Health Committee||Final Hearing||Adjourned|