Dr Valerie Murphy MPTS Tribunal: Decision on Impairment
After yet another afternoon of waiting, Karen, Ally and Ellis were at the GMC to hear the tribunal panel’s decision on impairment. They found Dr Valerie Murphy impaired. The tribunal will reconvene Monday 19 February 2018 for three days. There were two determinations, a public one (available to view here) and a private one (not available to us, likely to relate to issues of health or confidentiality).
As ever, all thoughts or comments very welcome below #JusticeforLB hive mind, do your worst.
So relieved that the Tribunal saw the true Dr Murphy .
‘the Tribunal has noted that there has been an absence of apology to Patient A’s mother and an absence of remorse for the consequences. It considers that the remorse displayed was limited to the consequences these proceedings have had upon her (Dr. Murphy).’
An acknowledgment by the profession and tribunal of the ordeal this family have had to go through to get this decision is also long overdue. Is there any wonder families fail to complain or pursue their complaints if this is the treatment they can look forward to.
“Dr. Murphy is upset”.
Skimming through at present but note that paragraph 43 uses the term “tragic case”.
Paragraph 48: the description “part and parcel of undertaking an adequate assessment” – VM fails on the lowest bar expected.
Paragraph 50: VM fails to act on a legal requirement to arrange a Best Interests meeting.
Paragraph 57: VM fails in basic management of a vulnerable patient
Paragraph 58: VM fails to communicate adequately with colleagues
Paragraph 59: VM fails to make adequate notes sufficient to provide clinical care
Paragraph 60: Tribunal notes that there are multiple examples of VM failure re clinical care and inability to communicate effectively. A lack of a treatment plan is “very serious” in Tribunal’s view and VM “failed to protect and promote the health of [Connor]”
Paragraph 64 (in full): The Tribunal is of the view that the extent and gravity of the above breaches of the fundamental principles of GMP together with Dr Murphy’s failure to comply with mandatory legal obligations to conduct a best interests meeting on two occasions are such that those parts of the allegation found proved cannot, when considered all together, be anything other than misconduct. It is satisfied that applying the test in Nandi fellow professionals would regard them to be deplorable. The Tribunal regards it to be sufficiently serious misconduct in the exercise of professional practice such that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise.
Considering that part of VM’s ‘defence’ at the tribunal was to muddy the waters and attempted to focus on this being a ‘tragic case’, the panel here have accepted the arguments made by the GMC representative that over the course of 107 days, there was considerable evidence that VM failed to provide adequate clinical care as defined under GMP. Not a tragic single error but a pattern of behaviour that was dangerous.
Given that pretty damning baseline, it means the determination about impairment would have needed VM to prove remediation through significant awareness, remorse, learning and understanding to have avoided an impairment judgment. That didn’t happen but how far along did VM get?
Paragraph 66: Enhancing knowledge of epilepsy – some remediation but not sufficient. Yellow Card scheme – potentially useful but only partial demonstration of remediation.
Paragraph 67: The Tribunal’s view is that paragraph 66 is the only area where VM has shown remediation. VM hasn’t shown remediation in ‘taking responsibility’ and ‘team leadership’. Nor are they convinced VM has demonstrated any remediation re record keeping and using computers (a basic requirement for the NHS).
Paragraph 68: In short VM has taken a few baby steps towards remediation but only in a partial manner. Wide ranging failures of VM handling “have not been remedied”.
Paragraph 69: Would VM repeat these mistakes? Well she hasn’t shown insight into the seriousness of what occurred, she only produced her homework for the tribunal at the last moment, her reflective statements in 2014 and 2015 don’t really show much reflection, she continues to look for excuses, she won’t take full responsibility, she can’t apologise to Sara and her remorse is only about her own sorry arse.
Given the above, I can’t envision VM being allowed to practice under supervision. The only question is whether they leave a door open for VM to come back if sufficient remediation did happen and could be evidenced. Given my opinion of VM character, that would also amount to her career experiencing sine die as being permanently disqualified.
Amazing amount of tenacity it took to reach this point. I noticed the same quote as Richard Julian did in the comment above. Says it all really.
It took much tenacity, but also steadfast resolve. VM was probably hoping that it would all ‘blow over’ and that she would be untouchable; processes slow and seem to move at snail’s pace but I guess they have to be followed in terms of due process…Still the determination in terms of outcome relating to what finally happens to VM to come -and not until February. Strength and support still very much needed!
Appalling litany of failures by someone whose incompetence led to the death of a much loved son plus total lack of remorse and sense of accountability. No one should be under her care. Connor’s family entrusted his life into her hands and that of her colleagues. Unforgivably unacceptable practice shown by her.
I am glad you got this result for LB.
It scare me reading how LB was treaed and how his family has been treated trying to get justice.
As a service user without family I know that if I die a preventable death there will be no one to get justice for me. I hope that through the publicity there has been of how LB and his family have been treated there will be far reaching changes so in future no one dies preventable death and if they do they get justice whoever they are.
‘Tragic Case’ if only they knew how it affects those who find themselves in this situation. Makes my stomach turn, but must remember my child survived ‘barely’
I am happy for you and support you. I am at this crossroads or thereabouts and know the impact it has had on my family.
Please bear in mind the evidence presented in this document is suspect. The entire review will have to be repeated due to inconsistencies in the GMC’s undersupervised processes for ensuring the accuracy of available data within the documentation provided by a nonindependent body (Dr Murphy’s employer).
Hi Jennifer, what do you mean? Could you explain more, thanks, George
I just sent the following email to ActionFraud (the UK Police Fraud Office). It is probably best for the Police to clarify the deeply troubling concerns that the website you are currently reading is based on fraud. Please see below.
Dear ActionFraud,
I am reporting a concern that the people affiliated with the email above are intentionally slandering a very good person using a website that reports a tribunal that was entirely based on fraudulent evidence, and which is currently being redone due to the poor quality control mechanisms in place at the time the tribunal result currently reported on this website was carried out.
I am requesting the owner of this website and the affiliated email be held accountable for reporting a fraudulent result about the doctor Valerie Murphy in a slanderous fashion, requesting the UK Police Fraud Office conduct a complete investigation into the perpetrators of this fraud and prosecute the fraudsters and slanderers to the fullest extent possible under both UK and Irish law.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Jennifer Spencer
Healthcare Fellow, University of Cambridge, and Lead Consultant for All of Cambridgeshire Child Learning Disabilities.
http://justiceforlb.org/dr-valerie-murphy-mpts-tribunal-decision-on-impairment/#comment-28894
Hi Jennifer, this isn’t just a website I’m reading, it’s a website I manage and promote with Connor’s mother, Sara Ryan. She has requested that you clarify what ‘fraudulent evidence’ you are referring to. As someone who has sat in court and tribunals and listened to your friend, Valerie Murphy, give contradictory evidence under oath twice, I can only assume you are referring to her own confused, and confusing, evidence? For information I live tweeted Valerie’s tribunal @JusticeforLBGMC and you can see her evidence, and what the panel asked witnesses there. I’m very confused as to where you think libel or slander has occurred.
Personally I believe that transparency is of upmost importance, which is why you might have also indicated that you studied alongside Valerie and are in fact her friend, and possibly not best placed to judge whether she is indeed a good doctor. I’m sure she has explained to you that the MPTS have suspended her licence to practice in the UK for a year, and then they will reconvene and decide whether she is is safe to treat patients. You can read their full decision on this on our website here http://justiceforlb.org/conclusion-of-mpts-tribunal-into-dr-valerie-murphys-unfitness-to-practice/ or indeed on the MPTS website here https://www.mpts-uk.org/static/documents/content/Dr_Valerie_MURPHY_21_February_2018.pdf have you also reported them to the police for fraud?
I look forward to hearing your clarifications to Sara, and my own questions, and perhaps those of other people shared here. Many thanks, George
Everything that is wrong with investigation and accountability, Some people just can not handle the reality of unprofessional conduct or failings, no amount of some mates whining is going to change what mistakes or omissions were made.
Accept the mistakes and learn from them that is all the public want.
Where proffesional are found unfit then disciplinary measures must be taken.
Me thinks you are not so keen on your friend being found out !
Absolutely appalled that this should be published on the internet as the GMC review was completely based on falsified information. What a horrible horrible thing to do to such a good doctor.
Dear ActionFraud,
I am reporting a concern that the people affiliated with the email above are intentionally slandering a very good person using a website that reports a tribunal that was entirely based on fraudulent evidence, and which is currently being redone due to the poor quality control mechanisms in place at the time the tribunal result currently reported on this website was carried out.
I am requesting the owner of this website and the affiliated email be held accountable for reporting a fraudulent result about the doctor Valerie Murphy in a slanderous fashion, requesting the UK Police Fraud Office conduct a complete investigation into the perpetrators of this fraud and prosecute the fraudsters and slanderers to the fullest extent possible under both UK and Irish law.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Jennifer Spencer
Healthcare Fellow, University of Cambridge, and Lead Consultant for All of Cambridgeshire Child Learning Disabilities.
http://justiceforlb.org/dr-valerie-murphy-mpts-tribunal-decision-on-impairment/#comment-28894
Hi Jennifer, would you mind elaborating on the ‘fraudulent evidence’? Valerie Murphy did not only provide such poor care to our son, he died. Her evidence at the tribunal was questionable in places. At Connor’s inquest and the GMC tribunal she instructed her barrister to cross-examine me in a way that was cruel and unnecessary and led to me becoming unwell. To call us fraudsters and slanderers is deeply inappropriate.
Any information you have to support your claims would be welcome.
Thanks,
Sara
Dear Dr. Spencer,
Forgive me if I am being somewhat obtuse, but could you perhaps elaborate in what way the post on this site has demonstrated any fraud?
It appears to me that it has, rather, reported a decision of a legally convened and statutorily empowered Tribunal; a matter of public record which not only reflects the decision of that body, it provides a copy thereof.
Surely, if Dr Murphy was aggrieved by the decision, she had rights of appeal which she could choose to exercise.
I am unconvinced that the Police have any jurisdiction to investigate, or to challenge, impugne or undermine that ‘judicial’ decision. It would be for a higher court (indeed, the High Court) to do so if arguable grounds to appeal were advanced and permission to appeal were granted.
Perhaps your knowledge of the law and jurisprudence, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 et al, are greater than mine but I can find no legal basis for a challenge to be mounted against a Tribunal decision via a fraud complaint to the Police.
I’d be most grateful for some illumination.
Sincerely
Mark
Although it may be worth reflecting that under s 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (CLA 1967), it is an offence to cause a wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making a false report – either orally or in writing – to the police or anyone else
Dear Dr Spencer,
Are you okay? This seems an unusual reaction to the publishing of a document that is already in the public domain. I’m struggling to understand your complaint as it seems to have been written with much emotion and little punctuation, but you appear to suggest that fraud or slander has been perpetrated by the Justice for LB campaign. In what way is it fraudulent or slanderous to publish the public record of a Tribunal’s findings? Your complaint is at best bizarre and at worst bullying of a bereaved relative who has fought tooth and nail for justice for her son and so many others who have died as a result of state negligence.
Perhaps you might reconsider this action in the sober light of the morning?
Yours faithfully,
Lizzie
Dear Dr Jennifer Lee Young Spencer
I strongly suggest that you review your remarks as they are factually inaccurate.
This blog only states what is already in the public domain and is therefore not either a police matter or of Slander.
I myself have been the victim of proffesional misconduct by a group of health care professionals and feel genuinely for the author of this blog and the family.
Not only during the time for a family to be victimised and have to fight tooth and nail for justice for you to spout such utter tripe in obvious protection for a guilty friend is beyond abohorant.
I believe that when organisations try to suppress public awareness of unfit practice then the victims have every right to shout louder.
Everyday I have to live knowing a so called proffesional who has lied and failed to account for an elderly persons funds is still allowed to work amongst vulnerable adults.
Remember just because an individual is a friend does not make them incapable of negligence or being unfit.
I will never be silenced and there will always be those who will not tolerate proffesional failures.