Statutory Committee

Reprimand for pharmacist who had a “history of heavy and chaotic drinking” more

Restoration for man who had practised without indemnity cover for a number of years more

Name restored to the register after striking-off for the possession of cannabis resin more

Prescription fraud leads to pharmacist's striking off more

Case adjourned for pharmacist who was over the alcohol limit as he drove to work more

Pharmacist's name restored more

Reprimand for pharmacist who had a “history of heavy and chaotic drinking”

Problems resulting from a “history of chaotic and heavy drinking” have led to a pharmacist being reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 16 September 2003, the committee resumed its inquiry into the case of Matthew Richard Jacques, of 46 Whernside Road, Woodthorpe, Nottingham. At the opening of the inquiry on 22 April 2002 the committee had received information that on 5 January 2001 Mr Jacques had pleaded guilty at Leicester magistrates’ court to driving a car with excess alcohol in his breath. He had been fined £150, ordered to pay £55 costs and banned from holding a driving licence for 24 months.

The committee had also received a complaint from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that, while employed as a pharmacist at Leicester general hospital, Mr Jacques had attended work on 30 June 2000 while smelling of drink and unfit for work, that he had failed to provide the required level of on-call services on or around 22–23 February 2001, thereby compromising patient care, and that he had had a number of alcohol-related sickness absences during his employment.

At both hearings, Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), presented the facts of the case.

Julie O’Malley, of counsel, instructed by Carr-Hepburn (solicitors), appeared at both hearings on behalf of Mr Jacques, who was present.

Giving the committee’s reasons for the adjournment after the first hearing, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Jacques had admitted the conviction and the matters complained of by the Society.

The most serious of the complaints was that, when Mr Jacques was on call at the hospital on the night of 22 February 2001, the coronary care unit attempted to contact him seeking to obtain antibiotics for a patient. He had been called at midnight and said he would be in the hospital in half an hour. He never arrived. The reason was that he had been at a party; although he left to go home he had fallen asleep because he had consumed an excessive quantity of alcohol. As a result, the patient was unable to have the medicine administered until 8am the next morning.

The chairman said Mr Jacques had appeared to appreciate the gravity of the situation; he unilaterally terminated his employment with the hospital. There had been a history of chaotic and heavy drinking; if that had continued, the committee would have to order his name to be removed from the register.

However, Lord Fraser continued, Mr Jacques’s present employers had reported nothing to suggest that he had in any way failed in his duties, and there was no indication that he had been under the influence of alcohol when required to discharge his duties as a pharmacist.

The chairman said that the committee had decided to adjourn the inquiry for a year, during which Mr Jacques was strongly recommended to continue to receive counselling and support. He would then be asked to produce a report on his conduct, a psychiatric assessment and a clear prognosis of his ability to refrain from excessive consumption of alcohol.

At the conclusion of the resumed hearing, the chairman said Mr Jacques had followed some of the suggestions made by the committee, but not all as fully as might have been wished. However, letters on his behalf had been submitted from his employers and from the director of Birdsgrove House. The committee wished him to continue attending there as an outpatient for a further two years.

The committee administered a reprimand to Mr Jacques.

Restoration for man who had practised without indemnity cover for a number of years

The Statutory Committee has restored to the register the name of a pharmacist who had been struck off after he had practised without professional indemnity for a number of years, had failed to keep proper records of Controlled Drugs and had neglected the routine administration of paperwork (PJ, 16 February 2002, p227).

At its meeting on 18 September 2003, the committee heard an application for restoration from John Dickinson, of 9 Brockwell Centre, Durham Road, Cramlington. Mr Dickinson’s name had been removed on 24 September 2001.

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

Jane Collier, of counsel, instructed by Hay & Kilner (solicitors) represented Mr Dickinson, who was present at the hearing.

The committee heard that Mr Dickinson had reorganised his business, appointing a superintendent pharmacist and a pharmacist manager, and had made arrangements to pay his professional indemnity insurance premium by direct debit.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said the matter for greatest concern at the 2001 inquiry had been that, over a period of some five years, Mr Dickinson had neglected to have in place the requisite indemnity cover. Had there been a successful claim against him during that time, the consequences for him might have been catastrophic and, more importantly, a gross injustice might have been done to a member of the public having a valid claim for damages not fully met.

However, Mr Dickinson had addressed all the issues that had concerned the committee, and its members were impressed by what he had done.

Mr Dickinson’s name was ordered to be restored to the register.

Name restored to the register after striking-off for the possession of cannabis resin

The Statutory Committee has restored to the register the name of a pharmacist who had been struck off after a conviction for possession of cannabis resin with intent to supply, contrary to Section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

At its meeting on 17 September 2003 the committee heard an application for restoration from Paul Robert Crawford, of 4 South Avenue, Goring-by-Sea, Worthing. Mr Crawford’s name had been ordered to be removed at a hearing on 16 May 2000 (PJ, 19 August 2000, p262).

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

David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), represented Mr Crawford, who was present at the hearing.

The committee was reminded that Mr Crawford’s conviction had followed an incident in which the police had discovered a 250g block of cannabis resin in his car. Mr Crawford had explained that he had been asked to deliver a package by someone he did not know at a party he had attended. On his way home he had been involved in an accident and the police had searched his vehicle. Mr Crawford had said he had suspected that it was cannabis he was being asked to deliver but he had not been aware of the amount involved. He had explained that his judgement had been impaired by alcohol.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that it was clear that Mr Crawford returned before the committee much chastened, wiser and with a greater sense of personal responsibility. He had learned a lot, the hard way. During his time off the register Mr Crawford had used his time constructively, undertaking academic studies and latterly working in a dispensary. He had also provided three good references.

The committee directed that Mr Crawford’s name should be restored to the register.

Prescription fraud leads to pharmacist's striking off

The operation of a scheme by which the Prescription Pricing Authority was defrauded over a protracted period has led to the removal of a pharmacist’s name from the register by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 23 October 2003 the committee inquired into the case of Atul Gordhandas Kantaria, of 3 Chalk Farm Parade, Adelaide Road, London NW3. Information had been received that on 14 February 2003, at Southwark Crown Court, Mr Kantaria had been convicted of eight counts of false accounting. He had been fined a total of £12,500 and ordered to pay £3,000 to the PPA and £2,500 costs.

The facts of the case were given by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors).

David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), appeared on behalf of Mr Kantaria, who was present at the inquiry.

The committee heard that, over a period, Mr Kantaria had withheld low-cost prescriptions and kept the difference between the prescription charge and the actual cost price of the medicines.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the offences, contested at the trial, had been admitted to the committee. The actual loss to the Prescription Pricing Authority had probably been less than £700 but the payment of £3,000 ordered by the judge appeared to have been to reflect the cost to the PPA of its investigation. Mr Kantaria’s scheme had continued over a protracted period; it was plain that he acted dishonestly, in a systematic way, for gain.

“Sheer greed”

In passing sentence, continued the chairman, the trial judge had said: “This was a case of sheer greed ... you have been caught out on clear evidence of defrauding the NHS system, not in a grand way involving huge sums of money but in what I have described as a ‘drip, drip’ of fraud difficult to detect.”

The judge had added that Mr Kantaria had throughout his trial been “trying to throw dust in everyone’s eyes with numerous spurious points of detail, almost every one of which has been demonstrated to be false ...You are not fit to be a registered pharmacist”. It was difficult to think of clearer circumstances of the reputation of the profession being brought into disrepute than to have a learned judge commenting in open court in that way, said the chairman.

He quoted a ruling in a case held before the General Medical Council which included the statement: “... the purpose of today’s hearing in not to punish you a second time for the offences of which you were convicted but to protect the public interest by preserving public trust in the profession and retaining high standards of conduct as well as protecting members of the public... The committee have balanced the need to protect the public interest against the consequences of any order that might deprive you of your livelihood”. The Statutory Committee, the chairman said, followed the same approach as the GMC.

Quoting a the same decision in the case involving a doctor, the chairman said: “For all professional persons, including doctors, a finding of dishonesty lies at the top end in the spectrum of gravity of misconduct”. The same applied to the profession of pharmacists, said Lord Fraser.

Mr Kantaria was ordered to be struck off the register. He had three months in which to appeal.

Case adjourned for pharmacist who was over the alcohol limit as he drove to work

A pharmacist who had been stopped by the police while driving his car to work and found to be three times over the limit for alcohol has had his case adjourned by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 20 October 2003 the committee inquired into the case of David Michael Beldon, of Clayton Heights, Sunderland Road, East Boldon, Tyne & Wear. Information had been received that on 26 March 2003, at South Tyneside magistrates’ court, Mr Beldon had pleaded guilty to driving a car when the proportion of alcohol in his blood, 279mg in 100ml, exceeded the prescribed limit. He had been fined £1,000, ordered to pay £55 costs, and disqualified from driving for 30 months.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons’ (solicitors), appeared before the committee to present the facts of the case.

Mr Beldon, who attended the hearing, was represented by Philip Grey, of counsel, instructed by Charles Russell (solicitors).

The committee heard that Mr Beldon had been stopped by the police at 9am on 22 November 2002 and found to be over the limit. The police constable who stopped him had been of the view he was in no state to open his pharmacy, which had been his intention.

The chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) giving the committee’s decision, said that Mr Beldon had been fortunate not to have received a more severe sentence, as the alcohol in his blood at 9am was some three times over the limit. It was particularly worrying that he was on his way to open his pharmacy.

At that time, the chairman said, Mr Beldon’s state of alcoholic decline had so alarmed the police officer and one of the Society’s inspectors that they visited him repeatedly in an effort to help him; at first, he had done little to help himself.

Significant improvement

If that had been the only evidence, continued Lord Fraser, the committee would have directed the removal of Mr Beldon’s name from the register. However, after a seven-week period at Birdsgrove House he had undergone a significant improvement in both his health and his attitude. He had been alcohol-free since January 2003, he had kept in touch with his counsellors and Alcoholics Anonymous and improved in his demeanour and the care of his patients.

However, the nine months elapsing since then was too short a period for the committee to be confident that Mr Beldon would not relapse, said Lord Fraser. The case would be adjourned until February 2005. If nothing adverse was then reported, Mr Beldon could expect no more than a reprimand.

Pharmacist's name restored

An application for restoration to the register by Ritesh Maganlal Shah was granted by the Statutory Committee at its meeting on 22 October 2003. The committee had ordered the removal of Mr Shah’s name from the register on 15 August 2000 after his conviction for falsifying prescription forms (PJ, 24 February 2001, p245).

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

John Jones, of counsel, instructed by Gandecha & Pau, solicitors, appeared on behalf on Mr Shah, who attended the hearing.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Shah’s name had been removed after his conviction for 12 offences of falsifying prescription forms for risperidone. The charges had arisen following a significant error in prescribing by a general practitioner; Mr Shah had taken advantage of that error and financially benefited by about £1,500.

The chairman said Mr Shah had set out in detail the steps he had taken to ensure he kept up to date with pharmaceutical practice. Given the time that had elapsed since his removal, the committee could consider the restoration of his name. Mr Shah should, however, appreciate that if a similar misappropriation should occur in the future, the period of removal from the register would not just be three years but might be permanent.

Mr Shah’s name was ordered to be restored to the register