Another example of how General Chiropractic Council wastes registrants money.

January 24, 2011
By

SnoutsInTheTroughA new graduate usually starts work in August/September of the year of graduation and are expected to pay £1,250 for the full year even though they may only work two or three months of that year. Then new graduates are expected to pay another £1,000 in November for the following year. The GCC argue that they need this money to fund the regulatory process. Last week they spent about £10,000 of this money.

Nathalie Lismonde was suspended from the GCC register in 2008. She did not attend the original hearing or any of the subsequent reviews, presumably she has told the GCC she has no wish to be on the register or call herself a chiropractor.

The GCC see this as showing lack of insight into what she has done wrong and every few years they convene a PCC hearing to review their original decision. As Mrs Lismonde seems to have no interest in complying with Margaret Coats wishes, these reviews will continue indefinitely costing thousands of pounds every time the PCC meet. Good work if you can get it, beats working in MacDonalds.

On 13 January 2011 the Professional Conduct Committee of the GCC met  again to see if Mrs Lismonde had decided to acknowledge the authority of the General Chiropractic Council and reviewed to review of the Suspension Order currently in force in relation to Nathalie Lismonde. The Committee decided to extend the Suspension Order for 3 years. The Committee will again review this Order shortly before its expiry in 20014.

In January 2009 The PCC met again to see if Mrs Lismonde would acknowledge the authority of the General Chiropractic Council and reviewed the Suspension Order imposed on Ms Lismonde in May 2008. Having reviewed the Order, the Committee determined that it was necessary to extend the Order for a period of 2 years. In deciding to extend the Order the Committee took account of the fact that "Ms Lismonde has ignored the comments and advice of the Committee at the last hearing… in order to uphold confidence in the profession and its regulatory process it is necessary to extend the suspension by a substantial period. This is to reflect the concern that arises from Ms Lismonde’s apparent disregard of the regulatory process." The findings against Ms Lismonde in May 2008 related to her treating patients as a chiropractor at a time when she was registered as non-practising and was not appropriately insured.

In May 2008 The PCC found Mrs Lismonde guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The PCC concluded that the minimum sanction necessary to protect the public was a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months. The PCC stated that "the integrity of the regulatory system for chiropractors depends on the cooperation and support of individual members of the profession, including payment of an appropriate prescribed annual registration fee to the GCC. Adequate protection of the public requires that chiropractors should have appropriate insurance in place when providing treatment to patients. Mrs Lismonde disregarded both these considerations in failing to register as a practising chiropractor and then providing treatment without having professional indemnity insurance cover. The GCC is bound to take a serious view of such conduct, particularly when it is associated with a lack of insight on the part of the chiropractor concerned."

Share Button

No related posts.

Tags: ,

  • http://www.chiropracticlive.com/ Richard Lanigan

    This is how the GCC and most other regulators operate. They create a council of nodding dogs, full of self interest and then put the fear of Khan into the registrants to fund the councils excesses. I resigned from the register in November 2008, I practice chiropractic in Kingston upon Thames as. I have done the last 20 years. I have the same indemnity insurance since I graduated, never had a complaint made against me. When I first resigned, the GCC tried to entrap me into using the title of “registered chiropractor” so they could go to the police. sent private investigators in as patients. I went to my MP “Thats terrible” he said, wrote to the Department of Health, but nobody could do anything. Statutory Self Regulation” yet Council members are not even elected

  • Bruce Hoag

    I was a patient of hers for some years. I still wholeheartedly recommend her as a very competent chiropractor, regardless of the GCC’s findings.

    You can read about what they call “unprofessional conduct” here: http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/hearing_file/Decision_of_PCC_Lismonde.pdf

    It amounts to nothing more than deciding not to practise during maternity leave, but doing a bit on the side anyway.

    There have been numerous cases where medical doctors have been fully-paid members, in good standing with the GMC, who have been engaged in malpractice that put people’s lives at risk.

    Nathalie, on the other hand, has been more or less struck off for failing to notify the GCC that she had changed her mind about practising during her maternity leave of absence.

    To me, this is a clear case of professional bullying.

    Bruce Hoag, PhD CPsychol AFBPsS

  • Fedup

    If the latest pcc case is true then this is the first REAL case of the GCC protecting the public.

    http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/hearing_file/Interim_Suspension_Decision_IC_.pdf

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: