Teasdale v General Osteopathic Council [2018] EWHC 1679 (Admin) (04 July 2018)

Teasdale v General Osteopathic Council [2018] EWHC 1679 (Admin) (04 July 2018)

The PCC's findings in relation to the adequacy of explanation and consent for Patients A, B, and E were fundamentally flawed due to a failure to make clear findings of fact as to what explanation was actually given and what treatment was provided. The PCC's reasoning was inadequate and inconsistent, and its findings could not reasonably be supported on the evidence. Consequently, the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and the resulting sanction cannot stand.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1679 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Katy Teasdale; Defendant: General Osteopathic Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal From Professional Disciplinary Body / High Court Appeal From Professional Conduct Committee Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Unacceptable Professional Conduct, Consent in Healthcare, Sanctions in Professional Regulation, Appeals From Regulatory Bodies
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Health Law Unacceptable Professional Conduct Consent in Healthcare Sanctions in Professional Regulation Appeals From Regulatory Bodies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katy Teasdale

Claimant

General Osteopathic Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal From Professional Disciplinary Body / High Court Appeal From Professional Conduct Committee Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) erred in finding unacceptable professional conduct (UPC) against the registrant in relation to communication, consent, and aftercare
  2. 2 Whether the PCC's findings were adequately reasoned and supported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the sanction imposed (12-month conditions of practice order) was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The PCC's findings in relation to the adequacy of explanation and consent for Patients A, B, and E were fundamentally flawed due to a failure to make clear findings of fact as to what explanation was actually given and what treatment was provided. The PCC's reasoning was inadequate and inconsistent, and its findings could not reasonably be supported on the evidence. Consequently, the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and the resulting sanction cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Findings of unacceptable professional conduct quashed
  • Sanction (12-month conditions of practice order) set aside