A neurologist at the centre of Northern Ireland’s biggest ever patient recall will contest a decision to appeal his voluntary removal from the medical register, the High Court has heard.
Counsel for Dr Michael Watt confirmed his intention to resist the surprise intervention by an oversight body.
Lawyers representing former patients welcomed the step taken by the Professional Standards Authority but stressed they must not be shut out from the legal process.
In October the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service granted Dr Watt’s application for voluntary erasure from the register.
The regulator’s controversial decision means the former Belfast Trust consultant will not face a public hearing into concerns about his work.
His inability to engage with a fitness to practice assessment and the potential risk of suicide were cited among the reasons.
Some of those Dr Watt treated are seeking a judicial review of the lawfulness of the decision.
Danielle O’Neill, 39, claims there was no jurisdiction for the move which breaches her human rights.
Belfast man Michael McHugh, 51, also alleges it was an unjust step, denying public scrutiny of the neurologist’s work.
But it has now emerged that the PSA, which oversees regulators, has lodged a High Court appeal against the MPTS decision to allow voluntary removal.
A judge questioned whether the judicial review challenges should be put on hold pending the outcome of the separate legal action.
He was told that the neurologist intends to oppose the PSA’s challenge.
David Dunlop QC confirmed: “It will come as no surprise that Dr Watt will be contesting the appeal, on the grounds that it seeks to challenge the basis on which the voluntary erasure application was approved.”
During the hearing counsel representing Ms O’Neill, Dessie Hutton QC, reiterated claims that the MPTS decision was a nullity.
“If that argument is correct, there was never any basis for the decision, and there is no basis for the appeal,” he submitted.
Adjourning proceedings, Mr Justice Colton stressed all of the cases should be reviewed again as soon as possible.
Outside court Ms O’Neill insisted that her legal action represents an opportunity for patients’ to be heard.
She added: “I find it galling that Dr Watt, who should have a back seat in these proceedings, after all we have suffered, is now seeking to dictate how our cases will be heard.”
Her solicitor claimed the voluntary removal decision had closed off the only remaining public hearing into alleged clinical failings which have caused “harm and immeasurable distress”.
Claire McKeegan of Phoenix Law said: “Our clients [in the] Neurology Recall Support Group, who have been injured and traumatised, welcome the intervention of the Professional Standards Authority but wish to have a voice and participate in the court process.”
To get the latest breaking news straight to your inbox, sign up to our free newsletter.
Credit: Source link
