CASE UPDATE: Croydon Health Services Win Tribunal Verdict Appeal

There has been an interesting new development in the case of Dr Kevin Beatt, the Croydon based whistleblowing cardiologist  who took Croydon Health Services (CHS) to Tribunal over unfair dismissal.

Dr Beatt was fired after he spoke out over a lack of medical support at Croydon University Hospital, which resulted in one of his patients dying following a routine operation.

The Tribunal of October 2014 ruled in Dr Beatt’s favour and an appeal by CHS last January was dismissed. However, now a second judge presiding over the case at an Employment Appeals Tribunal has given CHS permission to embark upon a full appeal hearing.

If the trust is successful in appealing the verdict the original Tribunal will need to be heard again in its entirety, although this is not likely to happen for some time; perhaps not even during this year.

The ongoing case had already cost CHS upwards of £130.000 in legal fees by the end last year, and a second Tribunal will likely cost the NHS funded trust even greater expenses that could increase as high as £500.000.

Despite this turn of events, the planned Tribunal hearing that will decide whether or not Dr Beatt is entitled to compensation may still go ahead on its planned June date. If so, the trust may be required to pay Dr Beatt a substantial amount; likely a high six figure sum.

Dr Beatt has expressed dismay over the appeal ruling, referring to the decision as “an extremely frustrating situation”. However, CHS remain tight lipped over their intended future actions, releasing only a short statement to the press via as spokesman, stating “Legal proceedings are not yet complete and we are pursuing the appeal.”

It has also been revealed over the past week that the investigative body Care Quality Commission (CQC) has decided not to probe the professional conduct of four high ranking members of staff employed by Croydon Health Services.

This includes both former and current directors of the trust who were referred for assessment under the UK Department of Health’s ‘Fit and Proper Person’s Test Regulations.

Any investigation into these individuals was dismissed as unnecessary due to a lack of evidence that would corroborate any allegation of wrong-doing. However, Mr Beatt claims that he has not been asked to provide any of the extensive documentation he possesses about of the case despite the fact that such information may have the power to discredit them.