BMA instructed to launch defamation case around ‘vexatious complaints’

LMC leaders have called on the BMA to launch a test case for defamation when a GP is subjected to ‘malicious, vexatious complaints’.

At the UK LMCs conference in Glasgow today, LMC leaders passed a motion that called for greater protection for GPs who are subjected to unfounded complaints, including instructing the BMA to explore working with an insurance provider to support loss of income.

It also asked the BMA to work with the GMC and RCGP to provide guidance and training to employers and doctors in recognising malicious complaints.

Earlier in the day, leaders passed a motion that reaffirmed the concept that ‘the suspension of a GP contractor should generally be viewed as a neutral act’.

However, the latter motion – which was chosen for debate by delegates – went much further.

The final part of the motion ‘call[ed] for GPC UK to ask the BMA to seek KC advice on launching a test case for slander / defamation for a GP BMA member subjected to a malicious vexatious complaint’. This was carried in a tight vote.

Dr Samuel Parker, a GP in the North East of England who proposed the motion, referenced a case in Australia where a plastic surgeon won AUS$450,000 Aus dollars in damages after a patient complaint.

He said: ‘Malicious and vexatious complaints ruin innocent doctors’ lives, tarnish hard-earned reputations, dissolve relationships, and tragically can be fatal. Locum doctors may find themselves unemployed and without any income during an investigating period, which can drag on for months. Many doctors take years to recover, slowly rebuilding their confidence. Sadly, some never recover.

‘Where false allegations are judged to be so serious in the nature of an allegation and the impact of a doctor, we must seek the appropriate address, like our Australian colleagues. Such actions will also deter future malicious vexatious complaints. If we don’t, I fear we may face alternatives such as a routine, official recording of consultations, doctors leaving the profession, or worse, suicide. This motion may seem uncomfortable, but is nothing compared to being on the end of malicious, vexatious complaint.’

 Dr James Booth, medical director for Cambridgeshire LMC, argued for it to be taken as reference, and also said he has been subject to vexatious complaint himself, from a patient ‘who was deeply unwell in the grip of psychosis’:

‘I think there is absolutely work that we should be doing on this vital issue, but that work also has to involve the safety of patients whose experiences are being diminished. It also has to involve speed of process for anyone subject to a complaint. And at the core of it there has to be a determination of the true intent behind the complaint. That’s difficult, complex, challenging work.’

In response to the debate among LMC leaders, GP Committee UK chair Dr Katie Bramall-Stainer said she is ‘extremely sensitive to the deep upset that malicious, infectious complaints cause’, noting that she has also been subject to one herself.

But she called for the motion to be taken as a reference as the way it is written is ‘actually a bit problematic’, despite the ‘sentiments’ of the motion being ‘sound’.

On the call for a defamation test case, Dr Bramall-Stainer said: ‘A test case is aimed at establishing or clarifying the law. It’s already clear that defamatory comments made with malice are unlawful. So it’s not clear from this motion what point of law is the focus to make this test case.’

In the earlier motion, Dr Jeremy Mellins spoke of his experience after an unfounded complaint, stating that he had expected to be taken into custody.