Eric Izydorvzyk

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a Service Bundle of papers, from which it noted that a Notice of Hearing dated 05 June 2025 had been served on the Registrant by email, and a revised Notice sent on 31 July 2025 (“the Notice”). The HCPC also provided a certificate demonstrating the Registrant’s registered status and his registered email address.

2. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”). He also referred the Committee to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Service of Documents.

3. The Panel noted that the obligation in serving the Notice was to send notice to the Registrant, at his registered address. The Panel was satisfied that proper notice of at least 28 days had been provided to the Registrant and that service had been effected in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant

4. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Mr Maughan applied to the Panel to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and/or any representative on his behalf. He submitted that the Registrant was aware of the Notice of hearing, which warned that the Panel might proceed in his absence, should he not attend the hearing.

5. Mr Maughan referred to the factors from R v Hayward, Jones [2002] UKHL 5 in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. He submitted that, on consideration of the relevant factors, the Panel should determine that the public interest in conducting proceedings in an expeditious manner meant that the hearing should proceed.

6. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it had discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant or his representative, pursuant to Rule 11. The Panel had to be satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made to bring the Hearing to the Registrant’s attention. The Panel then had a discretion to exercise, as the courts had stated, with ‘utmost care and caution’. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant and the guidance of the courts from R v Jones [2002] UKHL5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162.

7. The Panel was satisfied that proper notice of the hearing had been served on the Registrant and that all reasonable steps had been taken. The Notice had been served more than 28 days before the hearing and had been preceded by an earlier notice, also setting out the date of the hearing.

8. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was, or ought to be, aware of the hearing. The Panel took into account that no request for an adjournment had been made known to it. The HCPC had arranged for the attendance of its witnesses at the hearing. Further delay in holding the hearing risked a negative effect on their recollection of events. Although the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant would be disadvantaged by his non-attendance, he had been provided with an opportunity to attend and had neither attended nor provided any submissions.

Hearing in Private

9. Mr Maughan applied to the Panel to sit partly in private session, whenever matters concerning the Registrant’s health would be considered. He submitted that issues of the Registrant’s health were inextricably linked with the whole of the hearing. Health matters in general were acknowledged to be intrinsic to a person’s private life interests. In order to balance the public interest with the Registrant’s interests, the Panel should sit partly in private, he said.

10. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) its proceedings are conducted in public. However, the Committee has a discretion to sit in private, wholly or partly, where it is satisfied this is necessary in the interests of justice, or for the protection of the private life of the Registrant (or certain specified others). He referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Conducting Hearings in Private. He advised the Panel that it had to balance the principle of ‘open justice’ with the private interests of the Registrant protecting his private life.

11. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s health issues were matters within the need to protect his private life. The health matters in the Registrant’s case were so intertwined in the evidence that to move in and out of private to deal with the health issues would not be practicable. It foresaw a risk that the health matters might be exposed in public.

12. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the Registrant’s interests in protecting his private life outweighed the public interest in conducting the case in public. Therefore, it decided, the hearing would be heard wholly in private.

[Paragraphs 13-123 Redacted]

Resumed hearing 04 December 2025

124. The Panel handed down its written decision on Impairment on 4 September 2025 but had insufficient time to conclude the case. It therefore adjourned the hearing, which was reconvened on 4 December 2025. At that reconvened hearing, the Registrant did not attend. The Panel therefore was required, once again, to consider whether the Registrant had been served with the Notice of the adjourned hearing and, if so, whether to proceed in his absence.
Service

125. The Panel was provided with a Service Bundle of papers, from which it noted that a Notice of Hearing dated 16 September 2025 had been served on the Registrant by email at his registered email address, and a revised Notice had been sent on 03 December, which indicated that the hearing would commence at a slightly earlier time on 04 December 2025. The HCPC also provided a certificate demonstrating the Registrant’s registered status and his registered email address.

126. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”). He also referred the Committee to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Service of Documents.

127. The Panel noted that the obligation in serving the Notice was to send notice to the Registrant, at his registered address. The Panel was satisfied that proper notice of at least 28 days had been provided to the Registrant and that service had been effected in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant

128. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Mr Maughan applied to the Panel to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and/or any representative on his behalf. He submitted that the Registrant was aware of the Notice of hearing, which warned that the Panel might proceed in his absence, should he not attend the hearing.

129. Mr Maughan referred to the factors from R v Hayward, Jones [2002] UKHL 5 in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. He submitted that, on consideration of the relevant factors, the Panel should determine that the public interest in conducting proceedings in an expeditious manner meant that the hearing should proceed. He maintained that, as the Panel had found good service, reasonable steps had been taken by the HCPC to serve the notice of hearing on the Registrant. Further, he submitted that the Registrant had clearly decided not to attend the hearing (repeating his absence at the previous hearing in September 2025) and therefore an adjournment would serve no useful purpose and would simply prolong matters unnecessarily which would have an impact upon the public interest in concluding matters expeditiously as well as upon the Registrant. Mr Maughan accepted that the Registrant might be disadvantaged by the Panel proceeding in his absence but, he submitted, this was outweighed by the public interest in concluding cases expeditiously.

130. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it had discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant or his representative, pursuant to Rule 11. The Panel had to be satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made to bring the Hearing to the Registrant’s attention. The Panel then had a discretion to exercise, as the courts had stated, with ‘utmost care and caution’. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant and the guidance of the courts from R v Jones [2002] UKHL5 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162.

131. The Panel was satisfied that proper notice of the hearing had been served on the Registrant and therefore that all reasonable steps had been taken. The Notice had been served more than 28 days before the hearing and had been supplemented by a later notice advising him of the revised starting time for the hearing, which also repeated the date of the hearing.

132. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was, or ought to be, aware of the hearing. The Panel took into account that no request for an adjournment had been made by the Registrant. In light of his previous non-attendance in September 2025, the Panel considered that he was therefore unlikely to attend should the hearing be adjourned again. The Panel also took into account that the hearing had been adjourned so that the final stage, namely the question of Sanction, could be considered, thereby bringing the case to its conclusion. Although the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant would be disadvantaged by his non-attendance, it determined that he had been provided with an opportunity to attend and had neither attended nor provided any submissions.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Eric Izydorvzyk from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Application for Interim Order

133. Having determined to conclude this case by imposing a Striking Off Order on the Registrant, the Panel heard an application by Mr Maughan for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months (to cover any appeal period).

Application to proceed in absence

134. However, before asking the Panel to consider such an application, the Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that he had to make a further application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, in accordance with the Practice Note on Interim Orders, which stated:
“If the registrant is absent, the HCPC will first have to make, and the Panel will have to determine, whether to proceed in the registrant’s absence with the HCPC’s application for an interim order and the HCPC will need to show that the registrant has been given notice that an application may be made. Such notice may be contained within the Notice of Final Hearing. As before, the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest will weigh heavily in favour of an application to proceed in absence, particularly when the Panel has made a finding that fitness to practise is impaired.”

135. Mr Maughan repeated his previous submissions regarding proceeding in the Registrant’s absence at the beginning of the hearing and pointed out that the Registrant had been advised in the various Notices of Hearing that such an application might be made if the Panel imposed a sanction which removed a registrant’s right to practise, which the Striking Off Order did. He went on to say that the basis of the application to proceed in the Registrants’ absence was the same as for the identical application that he had made at the commencement of the hearing, with the additional factor that the Panel had now determined that the Registrant should be struck off.

136. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who repeated his advice given at the commencement of the hearing. The Panel also had regard to the HCPC Practice Notes entitled “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant” and on “Interim Orders”.

137. The Panel decided to proceed in the Registrants’ absence. It noted that he had been given appropriate notice of the possibility of an Interim Order being applied for, such being an important part of what the Panel was required to do. Moreover, the Panel had now determined that the Registrant should be made the subject of a Striking Off Order. Accordingly, for the same reasons as previously indicated, which included the Panel’s earlier findings that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, the Panel decided to proceed in his absence when considering the application for an Interim Order.

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public 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; (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 Eric Izydorvzyk