AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)

Mr Hodivala said that the PCC had failed to have regard to Dr Scott’s evidence concerning the changed appearance of the patient’s UR7 (para 68 above); this clearly supported Dr Pal’s opinion, but it was not referred to at all in the Committee’s reasoning (para 69 above).

Secondly, Mr Hodivala criticised the PCC’s assessment that in this instance there was no evidence of the planned treatment (para 70 above). He submitted that the PCC failed to refer to the fact that there must have been an FP17 signed and dated by the patient for this claim to have been made, and that this would have set out the treatment planned by Dr Imani. In this regard he referred to an answer given by Mr Scott when he was being asked in cross-examination about the FP17 form and the Guidance, where he indicated that an FP17 signed by the patient was “[t]he best evidence that there is a [treatment] acceptance date”.

An allegation that the PCC had failed to apply the subjective limb of the Ivey test in relation to its finding on this charge was not pursued.