Mr Christopher Losinski

Preliminary Matters
Proof of Service
1. The Panel was informed by the Hearings Officer that the Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered address by letter dated 16 December 2019. A copy was also sent by email on the same date.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that Notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 and that a proper period of notice had been given to the Respondent.
Application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant

3. Ms Ktisti, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, submitting:
i. the Registrant was served with a Notice of Hearing to his registered postal address and email address on 16 December 2019;
ii. in addition, an email was sent to the Registrant on 17 December 2019 outlining the HCPC’s intended position at this review hearing and asking whether he would attend by telephone or in person the Registrant’s only response to the Notice of Hearing was by way of a handwritten note sent to the HCPC on a copy of the Notice of Hearing which states “As per conversations, I have no intention of ever returning to an OT role. I am now a gas fitter and plan to stay in that profession. Can I just voluntarily withdraw? How can this be done?”
iii. A follow-up letter was sent to the Registrant on 13 January 2020 in response to his handwritten note and informing him he can participate by telephone. There has been no response from the Registrant.

4. Ms Ktisti submitted that in light of the Registrant’s response to the Notice of Hearing and lack of subsequent engagement he has made it clear that he is aware of today’s proceedings and that he does not wish to engage with the review process.

5. In light of the Registrant’s lack of engagement and repeated indication that he does not intend to practise as an Occupational Therapist in future, Ms Ktiski submitted that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself from this hearing and waived his right to attend.

6. Ms Ktiski reminded the Panel that the current Suspension Order is due to expire on 23 February 2020 and that it was in both the public interest and in the Registrant’s interests for it to be reviewed at this hearing.

7. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

8. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered address by letter, and email, both dated 16 December 2019.

9. The Panel considered that the HCPC had made all reasonable efforts to serve notice on the Registrant and the Registrant had been informed of the date, time and venue of the hearing.

10. Having exercised the utmost care and caution in its decision making the Panel determined that to proceed in the absence of the Registrant was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances for the following reasons:
a) the Panel noted that the Registrant had shown very limited engagement and his handwritten note to the HCPC indicated no intention to engage with the process of reviewing his fitness to practise;
b) The Registrant had been offered the option of attending by telephone, which he had done at the last review but he has not done so;
c) The Registrant has repeatedly indicated that he has no desire to practise as an Occupational Therapist and plans to continue in his alternative chosen career;
d) the Panel was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the Registrant’s non-attendance was voluntary and a deliberate waiver of his right to attend and participate in person;
e) there has been no application to adjourn and no indication from the Registrant that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date and therefore re-listing this hearing would serve no useful purpose;
f) the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions but considered that the public interest and the need to deal with matters expeditiously outweighed any disadvantage to the Registrant; and g) this is a mandatory review of a Suspension Order and therefore it was in both the Registrant’s own interest and the wider public interest for the Panel to review the Order.

11. The Panel therefore determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Proceeding in private
12. Ms Ktisti, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the entire hearing should be conducted in private as this review hearing relates to matters concerning the Registrant’s health. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that the entire hearing should be conducted in private to protect the Registrant’s right to a private life. The Panel also determined that references to the Registrant's health should not form part of the public record.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Christopher Losinski from the Register on the date this order comes into effect. 

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Christopher Losinski