Ms Surinder Kaur

No information currently available

Preliminary matters

Notice of hearing

1. The Panel found that there had been good service of the Notice of Hearing by a letter dated 26 April 2018 which informed the Registrant of the date, time, and venue of the hearing.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

2. Ms Wills made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She referred the Panel to an e-mail from the Registrant dated 10 May 2018. The Registrant explains that she will not attend the hearing, will not have a representative present or call witnesses. She gives reasons for her non-attendance and states that she does not contest the Consent Order.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant”.

4. The Panel considered the Registrant’s e-mail and was satisfied that her absence is voluntary and that it was unlikely that an adjournment would secure her attendance. The Panel also considered that the Registrant would not be prejudiced by her non-attendance. It was in the public interest for the matter to be concluded expeditiously. The Panel decided to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearing in private

5. In her e-mail dated 10 May 2018 the Registrant stated that she was concerned that details of her health should be kept confidential. Ms Wills made an application for the whole of the hearing to be heard in private to protect the Registrant’s private life.

6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note “Conducting Hearings in Private”.

7. The Panel decided that the hearing should be entirely in private to protect the private life of the Registrant. It would not be practicable to hear part of the hearing in public and part in private.

Decision

8. The Panel recognised that Conditions of Practice in a health case must be linked to the allegation and the risks that arise from the finding of current impairment on ground of health. Nevertheless, in assessing the risks the Panel could not ignore the background which involves multiple and widespread concerns regarding the Registrant’s basic practice as an Occupational Therapist. In the circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied that the proposed conditions provide a sufficient degree of public protection.

9. The Panel therefore decided not to approve the proposed Consent Order.

The Panel therefore decided not to approve the proposed Consent Order.

History of Hearings for Ms Surinder Kaur