Paul Winfield

Preliminary Matters

1. At the outset of the hearing, the Chair raised the issue of an unsigned statement from a welfare support officer who worked for the Registrant’s previous employer, East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS), and which was referred to in the index to the HCPC’s bundle, and in the HCPC’s skeleton argument. The actual unsigned statement was redacted in full from the HCPC bundle. Ms Collins, on behalf of the HCPC, accepted that any reference to the contents of the statement should be disregarded by the Panel, as the HCPC did not rely on it, and stated that she intended to give reasons as to why in due course. However, Ms Collins submitted that it was right for the Panel to know as part of the background that an (unsigned) statement was in fact taken from the individual in question.

2. Ms Collins, applied for the welfare support officer referred to above, to be referred to as Colleague A in the hearing so that they could not be identified. The Registrant did not oppose this. The Panel decided, as is usual practice in hearings before a Panel when reference is made to persons other than the Registrant, that instead of the individual’s name being stated in open session, they should to be referred to as Colleague A.

3. At the outset Ms Collins confirmed that despite this being a case revolving around a health allegation, there was no application to hold the hearing in private, because the Registrant wished for the hearing to be in public. The Registrant confirmed to the Panel that he wished for an open and transparent hearing in public. On this basis, the Panel decided that the hearing should take place in public in accordance with the Registrant’s express request.

Background

4. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic.

5. At a meeting on 4 October 2023 the Investigating Committee (“IC”) of the HCPC determined that there was a case to answer in relation to the Allegation set out above.

6. On 20 April 2022 the HCPC received a referral from EMAS in regard to the Registrants health. EMAS terminated the Registrants’ termination of employment with them on grounds of ill health capability on 23 June 2022. The Registrant’s appeal against this decision, based on a lack of evidence, was heard on 8 July 2022. The Registrant’s appeal was not upheld.

7. By way of further details, the Registrant had been subject to a disciplinary investigation and subsequent hearing in which he was dismissed from EMAS in July 2019, the Registrant was subsequently reinstated by an appeal panel in September 2019. One of the conditions of the disciplinary outcome was that that the Registrant was to be moved away from Derbyshire to Nottinghamshire. The Registrant subsequently signed off sick from 4 November 2019 with the symptoms listed in the Allegation; [redacted].

8. The Registrant had regular supportive meetings to explore options to return to work between 7 January 2020 and 5 October 2020. During that time the Registrant had received [redacted] between May 2020 and August 2020, and it was agreed with all parties to temporarily pause the Registrant’s welfare meetings for the duration of the [redacted].

9. In September 2020, the Registrant appeared to have been managing his health by taking his medication regularly and it was noted by management that the Registrant was fit to return to alternative duties to get the Registrant’s back into the work environment. It was noted that the Registrant was likely to return to work at the end of his sick note. However, there were still issues regarding the Registrant returning to a role in Nottinghamshire, this is documented in an occupational health report from February 2021.

10. The last Occupational Health report from 8 October 2021 concluded, although there was some uncertainty regarding possible stress related symptoms, the OH assessor advised that he had no medical reason why the Registrant should not be able to attempt to return to work with the appropriate support. The OH assessor stated, ‘in my opinion he is fit to return to work, pursuing the ill health retirement route at this stage would in my opinion not be appropriate. However, this is only an informal statement, as eligibility for ill-health retirement has to be determined by a separate formal process, if that is required.’

11. On 14 October 2021, the Registrant had attended a formal case review with EMAS to discuss next possible steps in regard to the Registrant's working position. Some of the points noted in the report were that the Registrant stated that the Registrant was fit to return to work but was being prevented from doing so. The Registrant stated that they would sign any return-to-work plan if it was offered, and a plan agreed. It was noted that it had been pointed out to the Registrant that a return-to-work plan had been presented to the Registrant in a documentation pack following the outcome of his disciplinary hearing. The Registrant then went on to say that he did not agree on the return-to-work plan because the Registrant did not agree to going to a Nottinghamshire division. This meeting was adjourned at the Registrant’s request.

12. On 23 February 2022, the meeting was reconvened where the Registrant was asked whether he was fit to return to work, provided his GP agreed and a robust supportive return to work plan would be in place. EMAS presented a return-to-work plan in line with the OH report dated 8 October 2021. It was noted by EMAS that there were no remaining barriers for the Registrant’s returning to work and every possible effort had been made to provide a supportive return to work plan. It was noted if the Registrant was unable to confirm their willingness to return to work, the Registrant’s employment would be terminated.

13. The Registrant handed in a further GP note dated 8 March 2022 stating that the registrant was unfit for any work up to and including 7 June 2022. It was noted the Registrant had been absent from work for a total of 947 days.

14. The Registrant provided a sick note from his GP stating that he was not fit to work for a period of three months beginning 7 June 2022 until 6 September 2022.

EMAS Investigation report September 2021

15. EMAS drafted an investigation report which reports that the Registrant had been on sick leave since November 2019. The Registrant stated that he had been unfit to return as he felt the disciplinary process was flawed, and as a result the Registrant refused to accept the sanction and subsequent transfer to Nottinghamshire division, citing a breakdown of trust with EMAS.

16. The Registrant subsequently stated that he was fit to return to work but refused to accept the Investigation process and outcome. EMAS reported that given these circumstances and the Registrant’s mistrust of EMAS, they did not see how this would allow them to engage in a supportive return. The Registrant also stated that he was unable to attend any meetings at an operational ambulance station [redacted].

17. The Registrant’s GP issued a further medical certificate from 9 December 2021 – 8 March 2022 stating he was not fit for work due to [redacted]. Throughout the Registrant’s absence he continued to provide to EMAS sick notes detailing that he was not considered to be fit for work.

The Registrant

18. On 2 August 2022, the Registrant confirmed via a telephone conversation that he notified the HCPC of the outcome of his appeal of dismissal on grounds of ill health capability.

19. The Registrant explained during the call that his employer had no medical evidence to support grounds of ill health. The reason being is that the OH records presented that he was fit for work. In respect of the sick note stating that he was not fit for work, the Registrant argued that a sick note does not meet the government criteria to establish whether someone is ill. He stated that a fit note is not enough information to dismiss someone.

GP evidence

20. On 1 September 2022, the Registrants’ GP (Dr B) reported that the Registrant's diagnosis was [redacted] which has been linked to work related issues [redacted]. The GP also reported that the Registrant's fitness to practise would need to be answered/addressed by Occupational Health. This was supported by occupational health records from November 2019 in which the Registrant had presented a history of [redacted].

21. The Registrant’s GP provided a further letter to an employment tribunal dated 3 February 2023 listing the Registrant’s medical history [redacted] between 2019 and 2022.

22. On 8 August 2023, a health reference was provided re-confirming that the Registrants’ fitness to practise would need to be answered/ addressed by Occupational Health [redacted]. The Registrant’s GP wished to rely on the report that had been sent previously.

23. The Registrant’s GP provided an email dated 12 December 2023 which stated:

“[redacted]”

24. The Registrant has denied all health allegations to date and the HCPC accepts that he has actively engaged in the investigation to provide an up-to-date response from their GP.

Decision

25. The Panel has been convened to consider the HCPC’s application that the Allegation be discontinued in full. The Panel had before it an HCPC bundle, a Notice of Decision of the Investigating Committee Panel dated 4 October 2023 (at the Registrant’s request), and a bundle from the Registrant.

26. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Collins who referred to her skeleton argument dated 12 August 2024 which was contained in the HCPC hearing bundle. Ms Collins confirmed that Colleague A’s statement (which was redacted from the bundle) was not relied on by the HCPC because it was unsigned and Colleague A was not medically trained.

27. The Panel heard submissions from the Registrant who agreed with the HCPC’s application, although he stated that he had concerns about the way the case had progressed, stating that he would raise these through different channels. The Registrant stated that his medical issues had been resolved after 2021.

28. The Panel carefully considered the HCPC’s application and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Discontinuance of proceedings” dated August 2023.

29. The HCPC sought to discontinue the entire allegation on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of proving the Allegation.

30. The HCPC’s skeleton set out the rationale for the application as follows: (references in brackets are to page numbers of the HCPC bundle):

“35. As a result of the further information from both [Colleague A] and Dr B it is now the HCPC application that Health matters are discontinued in full. This is because the up-to-date health report from the Registrant's GP (set out above) implies that there are no current existing health concerns of the Registrant. There is only evidence of historical conditions dating back to 2022. It is on this basis there is no realistic prospect of the statutory ground of health being made out and nor a realistic prospect of proving that the Registrant's fitness is currently impaired.

Conclusion

36. The HCPC acknowledges that it does have an over-arching statutory objective of public protection. However, as set out in the Practice Note [Appendix 1], the HCPC should act in the public interest and not seek to pursue an allegation which has no realistic prospect of success. We submit that this principle applies in this case.

37. The panel is therefore invited to discontinue the allegations in full on the basis that there is no realistic prospect of the allegation being established."

32. In coming to its decision the Panel was aware that it must be satisfied that any decision to discontinue must not represent an under – prosecution by the HCPC and that there is an objectively justifiable reason for why there is no longer a realistic prospect of the HCPC establishing that any allegation is well-founded. The Panel also had in mind that in its decision it must take account of the “public components of impairment”, namely the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

33. The Panel took into account the submissions, the skeleton argument and the information in the HCPC’s bundle. It noted that paragraph 35 of Ms Collins’ skeleton argument must be read so as to remove any reference to Colleague A’s statement, in accordance with the HCPC request to disregard reference to Colleague A’s evidence. Effectively, what remains is the latest evidence from the Registrant’s GP. [redacted] It appeared to the Panel that this evidence demonstrated that the Registrant had engaged with treatment and there was no further concerns raised by the GP. There was no further medical evidence which was before the Panel since this email. As such, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence before the Panel to support the allegation that there was a current health condition.

34. It was clear to the Panel that the HCPC’s position was based on a clear lack of evidence regarding the factual allegation. The HCPC had obtained the GP’s opinion, and there was no suggestion from the GP that there is a current health condition, and any [redacted] condition was now historical. On this basis, it could not be said that there was any realistic prospect of success of proving the factual allegation. As such, there is simply no realistic prospect of establishing that the Allegation is well founded. There was no public interest in therefore continuing with the Allegation.

35. Accordingly, the Panel accepted the Application made by the HCPC to discontinue the Allegation in full.

Allegation Discontinued in full

History of Hearings for Paul Winfield