Mr Atridad S Saadat
By reason of your health your fitness to practise as a Biomedical Scientist is impaired.
1. The Panel was satisfied that there was good service of the Notice of Hearing by a letter sent to the Registrant’s registered address dated 14 July 2017.
Proceeding in Absence
2. Ms Carson made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She referred the Panel to an e-mail from the Registrant dated 2 August 2017 stating that he was unable to attend the hearing due to health grounds. The Registrant provided a medical certificate from his GP and a letter dated 1 August 2017 which confirms that he is unfit to attend the hearing.
3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and applied the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant”. It was clear from the Registrant’s correspondence that he was aware of today’s hearing. The reasons for his non-attendance due to health were also clearly stated. He did not apply for an adjournment of the hearing. He provided a medical certificate to confirm that he will not be fit for work until 28 October 2017. This is a mandatory review of a Suspension Order. In all the circumstances the Panel decided that it was in the public interest and the Registrant’s interest for today’s hearing to proceed in his absence.
Hearing in private
4. Ms Carson made an application for the whole of the hearing to be heard in private to protect the Registrant’s private life.
5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The case concerned the Registrant’s health and the Panel decided that it was impossible to separate any non-health matters and hear those matters in private. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to hear the whole of the case in private
6. The Registrant was employed by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (the Trust) as a locum Biomedical Scientist. He worked at the University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire (the Hospital) and was on a two week trial employment period.
7. During the trial period his employment was terminated and he was referred to the HCPC by the Trust.
8. The Registrant engaged with the HCPC and provided information regarding his health.
9. On 16 - 17 August 2016 a Panel of the Health Committee considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his health. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. The Panel also decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction to protect the public and meet the wider public interest was a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.
10. Ms Carson submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and that it was appropriate and proportionate to extend the Suspension Order for a further period of 12 months.
11. The Registrant has continued to engage with the HCPC. He submitted a CV, testimonials covering the period up to 2014, a medical certificate confirming that he is unfit to work until 28 October 2017, and a brief summary from his GP of his current health position.
12. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.
13. The Substantive Hearing Panel identified that there was an ongoing risk to the public. The previous Panel also concluded that a finding of current impairment was in the wider public interest.
14. The limited information provided to the Panel today about the Registrant’s current health suggested that there has been no improvement.
15. The Panel therefore decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired today for the same reasons as the Substantive Hearing Panel.
16. The Panel next considered the appropriate sanction, applying the guidance in the HCPTS Indicative Sanctions Policy. The purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant, though it may have that effect. The primary purpose of a sanction is to protect the public. The Panel should also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interest against the public interest.
17. The Panel considered the option of taking no further action or a Caution Order, but decided that this would not address the risks the Panel has identified and would not adequately protect the public.
18. The Panel next considered the option of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel was encouraged by the insight the Registrant has demonstrated into his condition. However, the Panel is in the same position as the previous Panel that there are no conditions which are sufficient at this time to adequately reduce the risks.
19. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order and decided that this was appropriate and proportionate, given the current level of risk. The Panel considered the Registrant’s interest, the need to protect the public and the wider public interest. The Panel took the view that it is not currently in the Registrant’s interest for him to practise as a Biomedical Scientist.
20. The Panel considered the appropriate length of the Suspension Order. The Panel decided that a period shorter than 12 months would place undue and unnecessary pressure on the Registrant. If there is a significant improvement in the Registrant’s condition in a shorter period of time than 12 months, it is open to the Registrant to ask for an early review and present evidence of his progress.
21. The Panel therefore decided that the appropriate and proportionate Order is a Suspension Order for a further period of 12 months.
22. The Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. A future review Panel may be assisted by the following:
• references or testimonials from any work or voluntary activity undertaken by the Registrant;
• information on whether the Registrant has been able to undertake CPD or keep his professional knowledge and skills up to date.
The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Atridad S Saadat from the Register for a further period of 12 months from the date of expiry of the current Order.
The order imposed today will apply from 14 September 2017 (the expiry of the current order).
History of Hearings for Mr Atridad S Saadat
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|03/08/2018||Health Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|
|15/08/2017||Health Committee||Review Hearing||Suspended|