GMC Complaint - Closed at Rule 7 Without Referral

The Client

In 2023, our client, an experienced consultant neurosurgeon, was instructed by a local authority to carry out an independent assessment of an employee who had been absent from work for an extended period and was seeking continued sick pay.

Our client produced a detailed medico-legal report, concluding that the employee’s injuries were minor, that recovery should have occurred within weeks, and that there was no clinical justification for prolonged absence.

The report was not favourable to the employee’s claim. Shortly after receiving it, the employee lodged a complaint with the General Medical Council (GMC).

The Complaint

What began as a simple disagreement with our client’s report quickly escalated into wide-ranging allegations. The complainant accused our client of aggressive and prejudiced behaviour, conducting an inappropriate and painful examination, refusing a chaperone, mocking health conditions, misrepresenting medical records, and even practising without a valid licence.

The escalation and timing of the allegations were telling. The complaint was not about genuine concerns for patient safety but was plainly retaliatory, an attempt to discredit our client and undermine a report that had gone against the complainant’s financial interests.

Our Work

We were instructed to represent our client through the GMC process, where the stakes were significant: referral to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) could have placed his career, reputation, and livelihood at risk.

Our response was methodical and evidence-driven. At both Rule 4 and Rule 7 stages, we prepared detailed submissions exposing the inconsistencies between the initial grievance and the later, embellished allegations. We emphasised the motive, drawing the GMC’s attention to the fact that the complaint had only been lodged once the employee became aware of the report’s contents.

We obtained independent witness statements from staff present at the consultation, from the instructing legal officer at the council, and from colleagues who attested to our client’s professionalism. Their accounts directly contradicted the allegations. We also collated powerful character references from senior medical and legal professionals confirming our client’s integrity, diligence, and reputation for clinical excellence.

Where the GMC obtained an independent expert opinion, we analysed it line by line. Far from undermining our client, it confirmed the soundness of his clinical judgment and highlighted that there was no basis for an impairment finding.

Our submissions were clear: this was a vexatious and dishonest complaint, brought purely in retaliation to an unfavourable report.

Outcome

The case proceeded to Rule 7, requiring GMC case examiners to decide whether to refer the matter to the MPTS. After reviewing the evidence, the examiners accepted our arguments and concluded there was no realistic prospect of proving the allegations to the required standard. The case was closed with no further action.

This outcome vindicated our client completely, confirming that the complaint was without merit and preventing months, if not years, of stressful and unnecessary litigation.

Comments from Jared McNally

“This was a serious and stressful challenge to our client’s professional integrity. By dismantling the complaint step by step, exposing the complainant’s motive, that it was brought only after an unfavourable report and providing the GMC with corroborated evidence, we ensured the case was closed without referral. The early, tactical approach made the difference between prolonged litigation and complete vindication.” — Jared McNally, Clifford Johnston & Co.

Clifford Johnston & Co is a leading defence firm in Criminal and Professional Disciplinary Law, based in Manchester and representing clients across England and Wales on a privately funded basis. We provide strategic advice and robust advocacy when your professional career is under threat due to GMC Investigations or the risk of GMC Warnings being issued.