Emma-Jo Montgomery

Preliminary Matters

Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private

1. Mr Corrie made an application for part of the hearing to be heard in private when those matters related to the Registrant’s health issues.

2. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel decided that it was appropriate to hold those parts of the hearing in private which related to the health of the Registrant in order to protect the private life of the Registrant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10(1)a of the Rules.

Background

3. The Registrant is a registered Podiatrist with registration number CH34590.

4. Under Part 11A of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Health Care and Associated Professions (Indemnity Arrangements) Order 2014, Schedule 1, Part 1, a Registrant who is practising must have Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”) in force.

5. It was alleged that the Registrant did not have an indemnity arrangement in place while working at Foot Medic from July 2021 until April 2022.

6.The Registrant was employed to work at Foot Medic in Glasgow as a Podiatrist from July 2021 until her resignation in July 2022. Due to a potential patient complaint in May 2022, the Registrant’s employer requested various pieces of information from her, including confirmation of her registration with the Royal College of Podiatrists (“RCOP”) and details of her PII cover. Following a meeting with the Registrant on 12 May 2022, her employer checked the RCOP website and the Registrant’s details did not appear. He telephoned RCOP who confirmed the Registrant had just submitted an application for membership on 9 May 2022 and this could be why her details were not on the website.

7. On 18 May 2022, in a meeting with her employer, the Registrant is alleged to have informed her employer that she was insured by the RCOP, that she had always been a member, and that she would provide documentation to support this. Following this meeting, the Registrant’s employer asked her to provide evidence of her insurance status on a number of occasions over the following months. The Registrant did provide an RCOP certificate which stated that she was a member but did not provide dates of membership.

8. The Registrant resigned from Foot Medic with immediate effect on 11 July 2022. In response to emails from the HCPC in November 2022, RCOP emailed to confirm the Registrant was a member from 1 January to 20 March 2020 and was not a member again following this until 9 May 2022. She was not a member in 2021.

9. The Registrant acknowledged in the substantive hearing that during the period of January 2022 to March 2022 she did not possess the required professional indemnity insurance and set out that at the time of the concerns, she had recently returned to work [Redcated]. The Registrant advised that the failure to obtain insurance was an oversight and was due to an administrative error. The remaining allegations were denied.

10. The hearing panel determined as a fact that the Registrant had led her employer to believe that she had professional indemnity insurance when she did not. Further, the hearing panel determined that the Registrant had not provided a copy of the insurance certificate as none existed. The panel considered that this conduct was dishonest and was undertaken with the intention of concealing the position.

11. The hearing panel considered that this amounted to misconduct and found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public component. The hearing panel considered that the Registrant lacked insight and stated,

“The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had taken personal responsibility for her dishonest conduct, nor had she meaningfully reflected and demonstrated insight into the impact of dishonesty on the reputation of the profession generally. The Panel concluded that her lack of candour on discovery of the lack of insurance cover, and which continued throughout this hearing, was indicative of a lack of insight on her part.”

The hearing panel considered that there was an ongoing risk of repetition of dishonest conduct given this lack of insight and it stated,

“As such it concluded that there remained an ongoing risk of her dishonest conduct being repeated should a similar situation arise in the future where she was challenged in relation to some aspect of her practice, albeit that it may not be in relation to the exact same circumstances as arose in this case.”

12. The hearing panel also considered that the serious nature of the repeated dishonesty warranted a finding of impairment on public interest grounds.

13. The hearing panel considered that the dishonesty was capable of remediation with the development insight and the conduct was not so serious as to require an immediate striking off order. The hearing panel imposed a suspension order for a period of 6 months.

14. During the period of suspension, the HCPC received six separate complaints about the Registrant allegedly practising or holding herself out as a podiatrist in breach of the suspension order.

15. The Panel was provided with the details of those complaints and the supporting evidence that had been collected by the HCPC to date.

Submissions (in part).

16. Mr Corrie on behalf of the HCPC provided the Panel with detailed submissions relating to the background of the proceedings and referred the Panel to the relevant caselaw and guidance applicable for this review. In summary, Mr Corrie submitted that it was a matter for this Panel to determine the question of current impairment taking into account all of the information before it.

17. He submitted that the HCPC’s position was that in relation to insight the Registrant had not demonstrated that she had remedied her misconduct as she had continued to mislead individuals about her status during the period of her suspension.

18. In these circumstances Mr Corrie submitted that as the Registrant’s insight was not complete the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. He submitted that a striking off order was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.

19. The Registrant elected to give evidence to the Panel and outlined her responses to the allegations that she had continued to practise as a podiatrist during the period of suspension. The Registrant stated she had fully engaged and complied with the suspension order and the complaints that had been raised against her were an attempt to harass her.

20. The Panel had been provided with documentation on the morning of the hearing which delayed the start of the hearing. In addition, the Registrant’s oral evidence took a significant period of time.

21. At the conclusion of the Registrant’s evidence and before final submissions from Mr Corrie the Panel concluded that it would not be able to finish the hearing in the time remaining. The Panel was mindful that the current order would expire on 23 November 2025, and it would not be possible for this Panel to reconvene before the 19 December 2025. The Panel invited representations from both parties as to the appropriate way forward.

22. Mr Corrie invited the Panel to extend the current suspension order for a period of 2 months to allow for the hearing to resume. He submitted that extending the order to 19 December 2025 would potentially cause difficulty if this Panel were not able to reconvene and so a further month would allow for unforeseen issues.

23. The Registrant was understandably distressed that the suspension order may be continued but wanted the earliest possible resolution to the matter and did not want to have to “start it all again”.

24. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the Panel were able to extend the period of the order if it considered that the Registrant remained impaired. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel may wish to consider extending the current order beyond 19 December 2025 to allow for unforeseen issues with listing but also consider whether the review on 19 December 2025 would be at the Registrant’s request which would allow any order made at that hearing to come into immediate effect.

25. Mr Corrie responded that he was not fully instructed however, he considered that this course may not be procedurally correct and he was doubtful whether the Panel had power to direct the nature of the upcoming review. Mr Corrie wished for his concerns to be recorded.

26. The Panel considered that it was in an extremely difficult position very late in the day. The Panel was clearly not able to conclude the hearing, make decisions and have the decision drafted as it was already past 5.30pm. The Panel was mindful of the need to be fair to the Registrant whilst balancing its responsibilities to protect the public.

27. The Panel considered that it was not in a position to adjourn consideration of the matter and reconvene before the expiry of the order. In these circumstances it considered that it would have to take some steps to consider whether to extend the current order to protect the public.

28. In the absence of being able to carry out a full consideration of the matter the Panel concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired. There was evidence before it that the Registrant had allegedly misled individuals about her current status and that she had allegedly made claims regarding her education and training which were untrue. In these circumstances the Panel considered that it would not be appropriate to allow the order to lapse upon expiry. The Panel considered that allowing the order to lapse would not protect the public and there was a real risk of harm to the public should the Registrant be permitted to practise unrestricted whilst there was a possibility that her fitness to practise was impaired. There would be no mechanism to review the order if it were allowed to lapse.

29. The Panel also considered that it would be unfair to the Registrant to impose a lengthy suspension order upon her registration without a panel having the opportunity to conduct a full review.

30. In these difficult circumstances, the Panel determined to extend the current suspension order for a period of 2 months, but it would reconvene to continue the review of the order on 19 December 2025. The Panel considered that this would effectively be an early review of the order at the Registrant’s request, however it accepted that it could equally be considered as a mandatory review before the order expires.

31. The Panel was mindful that given the developments in the Registrant’s case during her period of suspension there was a possibility that the Panel may need to hear further evidence should any new matters arise. However, the Panel considered that it would approach the hearing on 19 December 2025 as a continuation of the hearing today to enable it to reach a fair and proportionate decision.

The Registrar is directed to extend the current order of suspension for a period of two months.

The Order imposed today will apply from 23 November 2025. This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 23 January 2026.

History of Hearings for Emma-Jo Montgomery