Statutory Committee

£100,000 prescription fraud results in striking off more

Indecent photographs convictions lead to striking-off more

Striking-off for lack of professional indemnity cover more

CHRE intervenes in case of pharmacist convicted of drink-driving more

£100,000 prescription fraud results in striking off

A Yorkshire pharmacist who was overpaid more than £100,000 by making claims on forged prescriptions has been struck off the register by the Statutory Committee.

When it met on 21 July, the committee inquired into the case of Trevor Sherlock, of 1 Garth Barn Close, Bradford, West Yorkshire. Information had been received that on 13 October 2003 at Keighley magistrates’ court, Mr Sherlock had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of three offences of making a false instrument and three offences of false accounting. At Bradford Crown Court on 17 December 2003, he had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment; a further 128 similar offences were taken into consideration.

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

Mr Sherlock was not present and was not represented at the inquiry.

The committee heard that the offences related to three FP34C prescription forms submitted for payment. The forms, dated 5 March 2001, 9 February 2002 and 7 January 2003, included claims for payment in respect of forged prescriptions.

The Prescription Pricing Authority had noticed a large number of high cost items being dispensed by Mr Sherlock’s pharmacy, Aireworth Chemists, Aireworth Road, Keighley. In July 2002 the matter was referred to the pharmaceutical fraud team. On investigation, it was found that the relevant prescriptions had been issued between March 2001 and December 2002 mainly in the names of four local doctors’ surgeries.

On being shown specimen prescriptions, each of the doctors had confirmed that the signatures, although similar to their own, had not been written by them. In some cases, the prescriptions were ostensibly for patients of the doctor, but were for medicines that would not have been prescribed for the particular individual. In others, prescriptions were written for people who were not patients of the doctor who was the supposed prescriber. In one case, the patient named had died three months before the prescription had been written.

As a result of those findings, Mr Sherlock had been arrested on 5 February 2003. He had made a full admission and asked for 128 similar offences, comprising 110 forged prescriptions and 18 further FP34C forms to be taken into consideration. The total amount of financial gain was £101,771.80.

Explaining how the offences were committed, Mr Sherlock had said that he often came into possession of blank prescription forms which were inadvertently attached to genuine repeat prescriptions. He would then use his computer to type in patient details from genuine prescriptions, and add the medicines required. He then added the doctor’s signature, printed out from a scanned image he had made of a genuine signature and stored on file.

The committee heard that, in mitigation, Mr Sherlock’s counsel at his trial had said that at the time of the offences he had had personal problems and that a flood which had resulted in the closure of his pharmacy for three months had left him with financial difficulties.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), said that, although not present at the hearing, Mr Sherlock had acknowledged receipt of the notice of inquiry and had written a letter in which he accepted that his behaviour was an abuse of trust and was conduct unbecoming of a pharmacist.

He had concluded his letter by saying, “I am very ashamed of my action. It was totally out of character for me. It was not a simple case of greed on my part but that of a desperate man trying not to lose everything in his life”. He had accepted that his name would be removed from the register.

It was to Mr Sherlock’s credit that he had been fully co-operative with the police and had repaid all the money he had wrongly claimed. That had been taken into account by the judge when passing sentence.

Lord Fraser said it was clear that at the time of the offences there had been considerable marital discord in Mr Sherlock’s life, that he had been suffering from depression and he had had financial worries. However, none of that excused his resorting to criminal activity.

Mr Sherlock’s name was ordered to be removed from the register.

He had three months in which to appeal.

Indecent photographs convictions lead to striking-off

The Statutory Committee has ordered that a pharmacist who downloaded indecent images of young girls from the internet should have his name struck from the register.

At its meetings on 20 and 21 July, the committee inquired into the case of Martin Kenneth Atkinson, of 6 Mude Haven Court, Mudeford, Christchurch, Dorset. Information had been received that on 21 April 2004, at South East Hampshire magistrates’ court, Mr Atkinson had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of 27 offences of having made, between 1 January 1999 and 5 June 2003, an indecent photograph of a child contrary to Section 1(1)A of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and one offence of having had in his possession on 4 June 2003 493 indecent photographs of children contrary to Sections 160(1) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Mr Atkinson had received a community rehabilitation order for three years with the condition that he had to present himself for treatment as directed by the probation officer and to participate in a sex offenders groupwork programme and comply with instructions given by the person in charge. An order was also made for the destruction of computer equipment and the payment of costs of £120.

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

Mr Atkinson attended the inquiry; he was represented by Ralph Shipway, of Radcliffes LeBrasseur (solicitors).

The committee heard that the offences, which related to computer images downloaded from the internet, had come to light after US authorities had searched the premises of Landslide Inc, an American organisation that offered access to child abuse images. Mr Atkinson’s had been among the 7,000 UK e-mail accounts found. A police search of his accommodation had followed, and computer equipment and discs were found containing images that were the subject of the prosecution. Most of the images found were in the least serious category of indecent images.

Evidence was given that Mr Atkinson’s viewing of such material had been linked to his alcoholism. He had had treatment for that at Birdsgrove House and was continuing to attend Alcoholics Anonymous and to receive counselling. He had been abstinent since January 2004.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said the case had been one of the most difficult the committee had had to deal with. Mr Atkinson had made substantial progress in escaping from his addiction to alcohol and the committee would not want to hinder that.

However, his conviction could not be ignored. The committee had been told that while Mr Atkinson was principally attracted to images of young women who were about 16, some of the images he had recorded had been of prepubescent girls. It was true that most of the images were at police level 1, the least pornographic level, but the conviction could not be regarded as other than serious.

Mr Atkinson had brought the profession into disrepute, said the chairman, and his conviction was such that it rendered him unfit to be on the register.

Ordering the removal of Mr Atkinson’s name, the chairman said that if he wished at some future date to seek restoration, he would have to provide evidence that his progress with his alcohol problem had been maintained.

Mr Atkinson had three months in which to appeal against the decision.

Striking-off for lack of professional indemnity cover

The name of a London pharmacist who failed to establish that he had had professional indemnity insurance cover for a period of over 14 years has been ordered to be struck from the register by the Statutory Committee.

At its meetings on 10 December 2003 and 20 July 2004, the committee inquired into the case of Virinder Kumar Kumrai, of 74 Huntingdon Road, East Finchley, London. Mr Kumrai was the proprietor of a pharmacy trading as E. Horne, 235 Edgware Road, Colindale, London NW9. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Kumrai had failed to ensure that professional indemnity insurance was in place from about July 2002 to 12 December 2002 and that he had failed to provide evidence of professional indemnity cover before that date. It was also alleged that Mr Kumrai had failed to co-operate with the Society’s inspector during her investigations into professional indemnity insurance cover for the pharmacy in respect of the period before July 2002.

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

Denis Keegan, of Turner & Debenhams (solicitors), represented Mr Kumrai, who attended the inquiry on 10 December.

The committee was told that during a routine visit to Mr Kumrai’s pharmacy on 11 December 2002 one of the Society’s inspectors had asked him to confirm that he had professional indemnity insurance. He was unable to do so and was asked to confirm that such cover was in place by 16 December. By letter dated 14 December, Mr Kumrai produced evidence of professional indemnity cover that commenced on 13 December 2002, when he joined the National Pharmaceutical Association.

Mr Kumrai later told the inspector that his cover had lapsed “for several years” before 13 December because of cash flow problems. In an interview on 20 February 2003, however, he had said that he had overlooked professional indemnity cover only from July 2002 until the inspector’s visit on 11 December. He had said he would supply a copy of the last certificate issued before 13 December, which he stated had been arranged by a private insurance broker.

After repeated reminders, Mr Kumrai had faxed on 11 March copies of a letter sent to the Society, which had purported to enclose details of the indemnity cover requested. However, no such letter had been received.

During the hearing, letters bearing the heading of a firm of insurance consultants and dated 10 July 2000 and 9 July 2001 were presented.

The chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) announced that the inquiry would be adjourned so that the information in the letters could be investigated.

When the hearing was resumed on 20 July, Mr Kumrai was represented by Kevin McCartney, of counsel, instructed by Turner & Debenhams (solicitors).

The committee heard that the letters presented at the earlier hearing had purported to have had enclosed with them details of professional indemnity cover for Mr Kumrai for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02. However, investigations had found there were no such insurance consultants at the address given, nor had there ever been. There was no trace of the private insurance broker named by Mr Kumrai at either the address or the telephone number given on the letters.

Giving the committee’s decision on 9 August, the chairman said it was far from certain that the individual purporting to be an insurance consultant had ever existed. Mr Kumrai had said that that person had “cold called” at his pharmacy on an unspecified date in 1995 or 1996, claimed to have good experience with pharmacy insurance, and offered good rates with a discount for cash. Mr Kumrai had claimed to have taken out insurance cover with him at a cost of “about £500”.

Apart from the two letters referred to, there was, said Lord Fraser, “absolutely no evidence of the existence of these policies”. Further, Mr Kumrai could not explain why there was no reference in his accounts to the cost of insurance cover. There was no evidence that Mr Kumrai had had any professional indemnity insurance after 1986.

“ It is a serious matter for a pharmacist not to have in place professional indemnity cover for the protection of the public,” said Lord Fraser. Mr Kumrai had failed to ensure that such insurance cover was in place from July 2002 to 12 December 2002 and had failed to provide documentary evidence that cover was in place before that. Further, he had failed to co-operate with the Society’s inspector during her investigations.

An alarming feature of the case was that, but for the inspector’s request to see his insurance certificate, there was nothing to reassure the committee that Mr Kumrai would have had any regard whatsoever to the importance of such cover. There was no indication that he would have bothered to take it out.

The chairman added that pharmacists had no difficulty in obtaining full cover at competitive rates. Greater sympathy might have been merited if such cover was hard to obtain, as it was for some professions.

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

CHRE intervenes in case of pharmacist convicted of drink-driving

The Statutory Committee has amended conditriosn imposed on a pharmacist’s ability to practice after an intervention by the Countil for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. The intervention followed the reopening of an inquiry concerning a pharmacist convicted of drink-driving after a relapse in his abstinence.

On 20 April and 19 July, the committee resumed its inquiry into the case of David Michael Beldon, of Clayton Heights, Sunderland Road, East Boldon, Tyne and Wear. At the committee’s meeting on 22 October 2003 the case had been adjourned until February 2005 so that his continued abstinence from alcohol could be established (PJ, 3 July 2004, p34). However, an incident of relapse had been reported.

The facts of the case were put before the committee by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors).

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

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said it had been disappointing to hear of the relapse. The committee had been close to deciding, in the public interest, that if Mr Beldon did not abstain his name would be removed from the register. Any further relapse would have to be reported to the committee, Lord Fraser stated.

He emphasised that Mr Beldon would have to understand that abstinence meant no alcohol at all.

Mr Beldon had given an undertaking not to practise until the present hearing; the committee would wish that to continue until arrangements to transfer his pharmacy to its new owner were completed.

The inquiry was again reopened on 12 August following correspondence between the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The CHRE had indicated that unless further conditions were observed by Mr Beldon in relation to his right to practise, it proposed to refer the matter to the High Court.

The conditions set out by the CHRE were accepted by the committee and by Mr Beldon.

Lord Fraser commented that this had been a unique situation for the committee. It would have to reflect on how to handle such exchanges with the CHRE in future because of the time limit on applications to the High Court and the notice required to be given for meetings of the committee.

The hearing was adjourned.