My belated account of the Irish Medical Council Fitness to Practise hearing in Dublin on 10 November.
I’ve struggled with this because I wanted to include as much detail as possible, but it's incredibly time consuming and the more time I spend on writing posts means the less time I have to deal with other issues, not least responding to the endless emails I receive every single day from damaged patients.
I am therefore limiting myself to what I consider to be the most salient parts, and as I missed the first two days of the hearing can only recount what I heard in person.
I firstly want to say that I don’t believe Dr Jan Venter should have been before the FtP panel, and when I explain my reasoning you may then appreciate why I consider 'multidisciplinary' a dirty word when applied to Optical Express.
The medicolegal expert for the Irish Medical Council (IMC) was ophthalmologist Dr Patrick Condon, and some of the observations and information he provided in his evidence are of great interest and value, and I intend to publish these in a separate post.
I did however strongly criticise Dr Condon for telling the FtP panel that laser eye surgery was ‘cosmetic’. I pointed out the reasons why it cannot possibly be considered cosmetic, that I have fought for years to avoid this misleading labelling, and that surely he would not describe himself as a cosmetic surgeon. He agreed and said he would remember this in future.
I also had a few amicable and interesting conversations with Mrs Jan Venter throughout the day, and we did agree on some points, be it for very different reasons.
She said that surgeons are unfairly blamed by the company when things go wrong. And whilst I will always argue that if surgeons didn’t work for corrupt businessmen then they wouldn't find themselves having to fight their corner, on this occasion I agreed, because Jan didn’t perform Rebecca Kinsella'’s operations, Evangelos Minos did.
But as Jan was Medical Director at the time (worryingly now David Teenan’s position) the IMC - albeit logically - incorrectly assumed that Jan was the one in charge, noting his title as 'Medical Director and/or Clinical Director’ on the Allegations List.
It is a medically qualified Clinical Director who is normally responsible for a medical facility to run smoothly, ensuring things are done as they should be. Unfortunately, as we all know, due to OE's modus operandi its is Clinical Services Director Stephen Hannan who so wrongly overrules the surgeons.
Before I was banned from the premises I accompanied many damaged patients to their consultations with Jan Venter at Harley Street, usually in the presence of Tweedles McOptom, who answers directly to CEO David Moulsdale, a businessman who answers to no-one! (Read 13 November post for JV’s comment on this)
By calling themselves a multidisciplinary team this is simply an excuse for OE to avoid culpability.
At all stages a multidisciplinary team should be surgeon led, supported by ancillary staff, but as this is not the case at OE, who is to blame when things go wrong?
Unarguably Stephen Hannan and his boss(es), proven by the information I’ve collected over the years, some of which has now been sent to the IMC. Too late for this inquiry, but if there are more in the future it will help them to better understand OE’s lawless set up.
Tweedles is not answerable to the IMC or GMC, while David Mousdale and his cohorts are not answerable to the IMC, GMC or GOC!
Optical Express' multidisciplinary set up therefore is simply an excuse for parties to avoid culpability.
JV worked at Optimax for many years before David Moulsdale poached him from Russell Ambrose (as did Joanna McGraw), so Mrs V knew both both businessmen quite well.
While we waited for the panel to come back with their decision she asked me which of the two men I thought was worst.
Surprised at my answer she said, ‘maybe they’re [both] different kinds of psychopaths'. I told you we agreed on some things!
It was very costly for the IMC to conduct the FtP hearing, with a panel and expensive legal team to pay (happily even more costly for OE who had at least seven people that I counted on their team) hence the reluctance of medical councils to proceed with FtP inquiries.
So when I tell you the panel’s decision you may question whether or not it was worth it.
At approx 3.15pm, after Dr Condon had verbally given his response to the allegations against JV, noted below, the FtP panel retired to make their decision.
NB: PPM should read PM
They came back in to ask JV’s counsel if his client was prepared to give an undertaking that he would not repeat his actions.
Agreed. Out they went again…
Shortly before 4pm the panel returned and said they wanted JV to give his undertaking under oath. Counsel Simon Mills argued that this was highly unusual, but quickly agreed.
JV then gave his undertaking not to repeat his actions under oath... the chair said '
that concludes this hearing’... and everyone started packing up!
Incredulously I asked Lorna Lynch, IMC counsel, '
What just happened?’, thinking perhaps I'd missed something.
She replied that JV had given an undertaking not to repeat his actions. (No sh*t Sherlock - I may be visually impaired but I’m not deaf!)
‘
That was it?!’ I asked. Yup!
To be fair, thinking about it on my way back to London, there was little more the panel could have done, because not only did Jan Venter not perform Rebecca's surgery, but as he told a damaged patient (see previous post), the people in Scotland make the decisions.
At least the IMC did investigate this complaint to its full extent, unlike the GMC who continue to dismiss complaint after complaint, allowing the same surgeons to repeatedly damage patients.
And if you're a damaged patient and have not yet made a complaint to the IMC or GMC - very important that you do, whether ultimately dismissed or not!
Because eventually the GMC - the ONLY regulatory body for surgeons - will have to explain their repeated and insupportable decisions to the government!
Meanwhile, it's not over for Rebecca Kinsella, her high court claim is ongoing.