Mr Johnathan Knight

: Paramedic

: Mr Johnathan Knight

: Restoration

Date and Time of hearing:10:00 30/05/2017 End: 17:00 30/05/2017

: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

: Conduct and Competence Committee
: Hearing has not yet been held

Allegation

Matter 1:

In the course of your employment as a Chiropodist with A Foot Above Clinic:

 

1. On 04 October 2010, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the dental treatment which you received on 27 September 2010, in that you:

a) added the figure 2 to the payment receipt;

b) made the cost of the treatment £216.50 instead of £16.50.

 

2. On 04 October 2010, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £255 for your chiropody treatment, in that you:

a) falsely claimed that you received treatment from Z at A Foot Above Clinic on 04 October 2010;

b) forged Z’s signature on the invoice dated 04 October 2010.

 

3. On 04 October 2010, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of the £255 for your chiropody treatment in that the HPC Registration number “CH20596” on the invoice dated 04 October

2010 belongs to X and not Z.

 

4. On 22 February 2010, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £160 for your chiropody treatment, in that you:

a) falsely claimed that you received treatment from Z at A Foot Above Clinic on 20 February 2010;

b) forged Z’s signature on the invoice dated 20 February 2010.

5. On 22 February 2010, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £160 for your chiropody treatment, in that the HPC Registration number “CH20594” on the invoice dated 20 February 2010 belongs to you, not Z.

 

6. On 30 July 2009, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £250 for your chiropody treatment, in that you:

a) falsely claimed that you received treatment from Z at A Foot Above Clinic on 30 July 2009;

b) forged Z’s signature on the invoice dated 30 July 2009.

 

7. On 16 March 2009, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £198 for your chiropody treatment, in that you:

a) falsely claimed that you received treatment from Z at A Foot Above Clinic on 07 March 2009;

b) forged Z’s signature on the invoice dated 07 March 2009.

 

8. On 03 October 2007, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £25 for your chiropody treatment, in that you:

a) falsely claimed that you received treatment from Y at A Foot Above Clinic on 03 October 2007;

b) forged Y’s signature on the invoice dated 03 October 2007.

 

9. On 03 October 2007, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the  sum of £25 for your chiropody treatment, in that the HPC Registration number”CH20594” on the invoice dated 03 October 2001 belongs to

you, not Y.

 

10. On 12 June 2007, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £25 for your chiropody treatment, in that you:

a) falsely claimed that you received treatment from Y at A Foot Above Clinic on 12 June 2007;

b) forged Y’s signature on the invoice dated 12 June 2007.

 

11. On 15 January 2007, you made fraudulent insurance claims for the sum of £25 for your chiropody treatment, in that you:

a) falsely claimed that you received treatment from Z at A Foot Above Clinic on 12 June 2007;

b) forged Z’s signature on the invoice dated 15 January 2007.

 

12. Your actions set out in paragraphs 1 - 11 were dishonest.

 

13. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 - 12, constitute misconduct.

 

14. By reason of that misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.

 

Matter 2, as amended:

 

During the course of your practise as a Podiatrist,  you were instructed by solicitors acting for an insurance company to produce a medical legal report in a civil case and, in your report dated 16 February 2010;

 

1. You plagiarised medical legal reports produced by a registered Orthotist, CD on 1 May 2009

 

2. The matters set out in 1 above is dishonest

 

3. The matters set out in 1 and 2 above constitute misconduct

 

4. By reason of that misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired

Finding

Preliminary Matters


1. The matter that has been considered by the Panel is an application made under Article 33 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 for restoration to the HCPC Register.  The name of the Applicant, Mr Jonathan Knight, was struck off the HCPC Register as a result of an Order made by another Panel of this Committee on 28 May 2009.


2. The application was initially listed for hearing on 17 February 2017.  On that day the Panel heard evidence from the Applicant, but adjourned the hearing until 30 May 2017 to extend an opportunity to him to provide a gap analysis indicating where his current knowledge fell short of the skills and knowledge required of a qualified Paramedic on admission to the HCPC Register, and also how he planned to make good any shortfall(s) identified by that exercise.


Background


3. The allegation that led to the striking off order being made was one that the Applicant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of a conviction.  The conviction was one recorded against him at the Plymouth Magistrates’ Court on 28 August 2008 in respect of the offence of the previous day having driven a vehicle where the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit.


4. The circumstances of the offence were that the Applicant was driving an unmarked emergency response vehicle.  A Police Officer saw the vehicle undertake an illegal manoeuvre.  When stopped, the Applicant admitted that he was on call.  The Officer saw cans of beer on the passenger seat of the vehicle.  When breathalysed the reading was 89mg of alcohol in 100ml of breath – a level in excess of twice the legal limit. In addition to a financial penalty, the Court imposed disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 17 months.

5. The final hearing panel sitting on 28 May 2009 decided that the Applicant’s fitness to practise was clearly impaired at the time of the offence, and that, as he had not engaged with that process and not attended the hearing, there was no information on which they could reach a different conclusion as to his fitness to practise at the time of the hearing.  When considering the issue of sanction, the final hearing panel rejected the imposition of a suspension order on the basis that there was no information before it on which it could be satisfied that there would not be a repetition of the conduct.  It accordingly considered that the imposition of a suspension order would not provide sufficient protection for patients or members of the public. The result was that the striking off order was made.

6. At the hearing of the present application on 17 February 2017, the Applicant gave extensive evidence relating to the period between the offence and the present time.  He said he regretted, and apologised for, the fact that he had not engaged with the 2009 process.  He also gave lengthy evidence about the studies he has undertaken in the intervening period, as well as evidence of the therapies he has undergone. The Applicant called as a witness, Mr SK, an experienced and senior Paramedic who has been assisting the Applicant with regard to his efforts to have his registration restored.  Furthermore, the Applicant produced testimonial evidence from people who knew the background to the case and who were in a good position to comment on his character and aptitude.

7. During the period of the adjournment between mid February 2017 and the end of May 2017 the Applicant has undertaken significant work in identifying his skills and knowledge gap.  By undertaking a gap analysis with registrants who were in a position to look at the current requirements of a Paramedic they were able to build a credible and workable action plan that would allow the Applicant to return to practise in a logical, sequential and tailored way.  In the same period, the Applicant has already begun work on addressing the shortfall.


8. The HCPC submitted that the evidence discloses that the Applicant had developed insight into his actions, has remediated them and is now a fit and proper person to be re-admitted to the HCPC Register.  In relation to the issue of the Applicant’s skills and knowledge, the Presenting Officer submitted that it would be appropriate to allow the Applicant to be restored to the register subject to the requirement that he comply with the standard return to practice requirements.


Decision


9. In deciding on the application, the Panel has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Restoration to the Register”, and it has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.


10. The Panel has come to the clear conclusion that the Applicant was a credible witness who is genuinely remorseful, has developed insight into his actions and has remediated them.  He also produced testimonial evidence from people who were in a good position to judge his character, individuals who knew the background to the present issue.  It is no exaggeration to say that the Applicant has turned his life around.


11. The Panel has fully considered the circumstances that led to the making of the striking-off order in May 2009 and the reasons for it.  The Panel is confident that the Applicant fully accepts that decision and has achieved insight into the issues that led to it.  The Applicant has resolved the issues that led to the making of the striking-off order.  As has already been described, a significant element of the final hearing panel’s decision to make a striking off order was the absence of information on which it could conclude that that there would not be a repetition.  The position now is quite different as the Panel accepts the evidence of the Applicant that leads it to accept that there is positive evidence that a repetition is unlikely.

12. Turning to the issue of the steps that the Applicant has taken to keep his professional knowledge and skills up to date, the following findings are relevant:


• The Applicant has been working as an Emergency Medical Technician.


• Between the adjourned hearing and the present time, the Applicant has gone to considerable lengths to identify where there is a shortfall in his Paramedic skills and knowledge.  He volunteered the fact that he found the exercise to be a beneficial one.


• He has identified four mentors which whom he will work to refresh his skills.  Three of them are Paramedics, each of them working in a different field.  The fourth is an Emergency Nurse Practitioner who is a qualified Clinical Mentor, and it is envisaged that the Applicant will work with her in a Minor Injuries Unit.  The Applicant told the Panel that a further advantage of having a number of mentors was that he would not over burden any one of them.


• The Panel is satisfied that the Applicant is at the present time not far short of the required level, and that is so largely because of the fact that he cannot currently work as a Paramedic by putting his knowledge into practice.  Once he has completed all the elements of his proposed course of study the Panel is satisfied that he will be qualified to a level beyond that of a newly qualified Paramedic.


13. The result of these findings is that the Panel is satisfied that the Applicant’s should be acceded to on the basis that he completes the 60 day obligation imposed by the returning to practice requirements.

Order

Order: The Registrar is directed to restore Jonathan Knight (the Applicant) to the Paramedic Part of the Register, but such restoration shall only to take effect once the Applicant:

(a) has provided the Registrar with information and declarations required for admission to the Register; and,


(b) paid the prescribed restoration fee.

The Registrar is further directed to annotate the Register to show that, from the date that this Order takes effect (the Operative Date), the Applicant must:


(a) undertake a 60 day period of professional updating in accordance with the HCPC Standards for Return to Practice; and,


(b) limit his practice to the completion of that updating until such time as the Applicant provides evidence which satisfies the Registrar that the Applicant has successfully competed that period of updating.

Notes

No notes available

Hearing history

History of Hearings for Mr Johnathan Knight

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
30/05/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Restoration Hearing has not yet been held