Patricia I Dopheide

Preliminary Issues
Hearing in private

1. Ms Bernard-Stevenson made an application for the entire hearing to take place in private to protect the private life of the Registrant. The Panel took into account the relevant HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Proceedings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that the case concerned the Registrant’s health and granted the application that the entire hearing should take place in private.
Background

2. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Occupational Therapist. She was employed by Chelsea and Westminster NHS Trust (the Trust) as a Band 6 Occupational Therapist at the relevant time.

3. On 23 July 2018 the HCPC was informed by the Trust that the Registrant’s contract of employment had been terminated following the outcome of a long-term sickness hearing. The Registrant had been off work for a total of 22 months between August 2016 and June 2018.

4. The Trust had conducted two risk assessments on the Registrant’s fitness to practise to return to work. Both assessments concluded that there were concerns about her ability to practise as a Band 6 Occupational Therapist as a result of the Registrant suffering from a chronic condition.

5. On 15 April 2020 a panel of the Investigating Committee of the HCPC determined that there was a case for the Registrant to answer in respect of the allegation referred to above.

6. On 5 April 2022 the HCPC confirmed that the Registrant’s representative had contacted the HCPC to advise that the Registrant wished to proceed with a Voluntary Removal Agreement (VRA).

7. In light of the fact that the Registrant admitted the allegation and the surrounding circumstances, the HCPC considered the case suitable for disposal by way of a VRA.

8. On 23 June 2022 the Registrant returned a completed Consensual Disposal Request pro-forma, in which she admitted the facts of the allegation and that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her health.

9. The HCPC received a signed VRA from the Registrant dated 16 November 2022.

Submissions

10. The HCPC’s submissions in support of the VRA are contained in a skeleton argument of Kingsley Napley LLP dated 17 October 2022, on which Ms Bernard-Stevenson elaborated in her oral submissions.

11. The HCPC submits that disposal of the proceedings by VRA is the appropriate and proportionate means of disposing of the proceedings.

12. With regard to the overarching need to protect members of the public, the HCPC submits that voluntary removal is equivalent in effect to a Striking Off Order. It follows that the necessary protection of the public would thereby be ensured.

13. With regard to the wider public interest, the HCPC submits that there would be no prejudice to the public interest by voluntary removal and no benefit to the public for the case to proceed to a substantive hearing.

14. The HCPC also submits that voluntary removal would be a fairer and less stressful manner of disposal for the Registrant, who has admitted the substance of the allegation and that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her health. She has consistently stated that she does not intend to return to practice.

15. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Shadenbury supported the application for voluntary removal and submitted that it was in the public interest and the Registrant’s interests that the VRA be approved.

The Panel’s decision

16. The Panel today was provided by the HCPC with a bundle of documents containing medical evidence and other material relating to the Allegation, documents relating to the Registrant’s request for voluntary removal and the signed VRA. In addition, the Panel had the benefit of a skeleton argument of Kingsley Napley LLP on behalf of the HCPC dated 17 October 2022.

17. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Disposal of Cases by Consent” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

18. The Panel first considered whether the proposed resolution of these proceedings would provide the appropriate level of public protection. The Panel took into account that a VRA is equivalent in its effect to a Striking Off Order, which would prevent the Registrant from applying to be re-admitted to the Register for at least 5 years. In the unlikely event of an application for re-admission, she would be required to undertake a significant period of updating her professional skills and knowledge, together with updated medical evidence. The Panel was satisfied that the public would thereby be adequately protected.

19. The Panel further considered whether the proposed resolution of these proceedings would be detrimental to the wider public interest. The Panel was satisfied that a member of the public, properly informed as to the circumstances of the case, would be satisfied that the Voluntary Removal Agreement is an appropriate and proportionate disposal of the matter by addressing the need for public protection and maintaining public confidence in the profession.

20. The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant had given her informed and unequivocal consent to the disposal of the proceedings by way of Voluntary Removal.

21. The Panel therefore consented to the HCPC discontinuing these proceedings.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Ms Patricia Dopheide from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Patricia I Dopheide