Statutory Committee

Striking off for pharmacist who stole POMs for own use more

Reprimand results from alcohol problems more

Restoration for man who was struck off as the result of a drink problem more

Striking off for pharmacist who stole POMs for own use

The Statutory Committee has struck off a pharmacist who had stolen goods from his employer, taken medicines for his own use and smelt of alcohol while on duty.

At its meeting on 16 September 2003, the committee inquired into the case of Ziad Khattab, of 3 Albert Road, Eccles, Manchester. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Khattab, while employed as a pharmacist manager, had on 30 September 2002 received a police adult caution after admitting theft of 40 units of Nicorette nasal spray from his employer. It was also alleged, inter alia, that Mr Khattab had without authority taken a number of prescription-only medicines for his own use, and taken other goods without paying for them. He had also made disparaging remarks about a doctor to patients, had smelled of alcohol while on duty and had made dispensing errors in relation to methadone and labetolol.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), attended the meeting to present the facts of the case.

Mr Khattab was not present and was not represented.

The chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Khattab had confirmed that he had received the notice of inquiry relating to the meeting and had indicated he would not attend and not be represented. He had not requested an adjournment. The inquiry would therefore proceed in his absence.

The committee heard that Mr Khattab was a young pharmacist who had found employment as pharmacy manager at Hillside Health Centre, Skelmersdale in December 2001. Evidence was given that, after an initial satisfactory period, there was a deterioration. He began to take for his own use metoclopramide, lansoprazole, ibuprofen 600 mg and Solpadol in increasing doses, particularly over the last weeks of his employment in July and August 2002.

The committee was also told that Mr Khattab was disparaging to customers and patients about a doctor who worked at the health centre, that he had allowed drug addicts and their dogs into the dispensary, that he shaved in the dispensary, and that he exhibited mood changes and smelled of alcohol while on duty.

Then, on 30 September 2002, he had been arrested on suspicion of theft of about 40 Nicorette nasal sprays, which he had admitted and for which he had received a certificate of caution. Subsequently, he had made recompense of £1,100 to his employer.

The chairman said the committee was disappointed to have heard little from Mr Khattab and had not found the written account of matters he had submitted very compelling. The Society’s allegations had been proved. Before the committee came to a decision, he inquired whether anything adverse was known about Mr Khattab.

He was told that in January 2001, before he was registered, Mr Khattab had appeared before the committee in consequence of a conviction under section 64 of the Medicines Act; no direction had been given on that occasion.

Mr Khattab’s name was ordered to be removed from the register. He had three months in which to appeal.

Reprimand results from alcohol problems

A pharmacist who had suffered problems caused by alcohol has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 18 September 2003 the committee resumed its inquiry into the case of Alexander Harper, of 20 Thornhill Road, Streetly, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. The inquiry had been adjourned from 21 March 2002, when a complaint from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society had been considered. This alleged that on 6 December 2000 Mr Harper had attended work at the Manor Hospital, Walsall, under the influence of alcohol and incapable of performing his duties as director of pharmaceutical services. It was also alleged that on 5 July 2001 he had attended for work as a locum pharmacist at the Co-op Pharmacy, 3 Church Street, Darlaston, while under the influence of alcohol.

At both hearings, the facts of the case were presented by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) and Sam Flew, of RadcliffesLeBrasseur (solicitors) appeared for Mr Harper, who was present.

The initial hearing had heard instances of Mr Harper’s problems with alcohol that had led to his suspension from, and eventually loss of, his hospital post and of his dismissal from the locum engagement.

On July 12, 2001, following the latter incident, he had been visited at home by two of the Society’s inspectors. He had admitted that he had an alcohol problem and attended rehabilitation programmes. He said he was, in the main, abstemious but suffered from occasional relapses.

At the conclusion of that hearing, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Harper had admitted the incidents complained of and that they amounted to misconduct such as to render him unfit to be on the register. In its essentials, however, the case was a health case rather than a misconduct case. As the Society did not yet have a health committee, the Statutory Committee had to act as one, albeit reluctantly, said Lord Fraser. They could claim no special expertise in resolving health issues, nor did they have the range of options for dealing with such issues that would be desirable for a properly constituted health committee.

Mr Harper was suffering from an illness, Lord Fraser continued, and it was not for the committee to hinder his prospects of recovery. The inquiry would be adjourned for 18 months, subject to his undertaking not to practise as a pharmacist during that period.

Giving the committee’s decision at the resumed inquiry, the chairman said that apart from one relapse shortly after the adjourned hearing, Mr Harper had been wholly abstinent from alcohol. He had maintained regular contact with Alcoholics Anonymous, with his counsellor and with Birdsgrove House, whose director had offered ongoing support and said he considered Mr Harper fit to practise as a pharmacist. The committee hoped Mr Harper would take advantage of that support and that he would take appropriate courses so he could “ease his way back” onto practice.

Mr Harper was reprimanded and the case was closed.

Restoration for man who was struck off as the result of a drink problem

At its meeting on 18 September 2003 the committee heard an application for restoration from Brian Hope Robertson, of 4 Wansfell Avenue, Carlisle, Cumbria. Mr Robertson’s name had been removed from the register by order of the committee at its meeting on 15 January 2001 following a conviction for driving when over the prescribed limit for alcohol, and an incident when he had been unable to carry out his duties at the pharmacy where he had been working as a locum (PJ, 30 June 2001, p885).

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), presented the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Robertson attended the hearing and was represented by Sam Flew, of RadcliffesLeBrasseur (solicitors).

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Robertson had indicated that if he had his name restored to the register he intended to work only for something like three to three-and-a-half days a week. The committee was comfortable and confident in the public interest that, if that was his intention, Mr Robertson’s name could be restored, with the recommendation that he continued to take advantage of the support offered to him by Birdsgrove House and his counsellors.

The committee ordered the restoration of Mr Robertson’s name to the register.