What was the case about? The GCC would say it was about "protecting the public", I would say it was about the GCC adding another chiropractor to his hit list. The GCC executive officer Greg Price would then post on the "chiropractic sceptics" website under the title " Another one bites the dust".
I would call these cases forcing square pegs in round holes.This case started after a row between the patient and Monicas husband who is the practise manager. The patient became angry because Monica was running late and ended up having an argument with Monica husband. The next day she rang the GCC and they told the lady they could do nothing about the practice manager and if she wanted to complain it would have to be about the chiropractor, Monica Handa so she made a complaint about Monica.
When the initial complaint was presented to the GCC, their expert Richard Brown and he told them that he did not believe this was a breach of the code of practise. GCC executive officer Greg Price then went back to the witness and the charges were re-gigged and then according to Richard Brown now vice president of the GCC there was a case to answer and it was referred to the Investigating committee, who then formulated the allegations which are documented below.
Bear in mind the complainant Patient A did not support all these allegations that were formulated by the Investigating Committee, for example the patient never alleged that Monica had threatened to terminate her care, nevertheless that was how the GCC office wrote the complaint up for the Investigating Committee. That was the start of the slippery slope as far as these allegations were concerned and Monica is not the only chiropractor who has been treated like this.
To crown it all Greg Price refused an adjournment of this hearing on the grounds Monica was breast feeding her new born during the time the GCC scheduled the hearing. Price told her “If you can work as a chiropractor and feed your baby, you can attend a weeks hearing in London”
NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS TO BE REFERRED TO
THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
OF THE GENERAL CHIROPRACTIC COUNCIL
Name of Respondent: Monica Handa
Address of Respondent: Warrington Chiropractic Centre
491 Winwick Road
Registration Number of Respondent: 00182
Case Reference Number: 0804/00182/01
In accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Chiropractors Act 1994 (“the Act”), the
Investigating Committee of the General Chiropractic Council has considered the allegation(s)
against you, as notified to you in our letters of 19 October 2004 and has concluded that there
is a Case to Answer.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 20(12)(a) and 20(12)(
of the Act, notice is hereby
given that the following allegations are to be referred to the Professional Conduct Committee
of the General Chiropractic Council for its consideration.
That, whilst a registered chiropractor:
1. On or about 31 March 2004 you accepted Ms S for treatment;
2. At the appointment on or about 1 April 2004 you informed Ms S that one of her legs was shorter than the other;
3. At the appointment on 1 April 2004 you declined Ms S’s request to explain this further, and informed her that it would be explained at a subsequent “workshop”;
4. Your conduct in declining to answer a question about your diagnosis and in referring the question to the workshop was:
c. Not in the best interests of Ms S;
5. At an appointment on or about 1 April 2004 you informed Ms S that, if she did not attend a workshop at your practice within 2 weeks, her treatment by you would be terminated;
6. Ms S attended a workshop on a date during April 2004;
7. The workshop was conducted by a person who was not a registered chiropractor;
8. Your conduct in making the continuation of treatment conditional upon attendance at the workshop was:
b. Not in the best interests of Ms S;
9. On 5 April 2004 you commenced treatment on Ms S by carrying out an adjustment to her neck;
10. You did not explain to Ms S the nature of the treatment which would be provided before carrying out the adjustment on 5 April 2004;
11. Your conduct in failing to explain the treatment to be provided before carrying out an adjustment was:
12. Ms S attended appointments at your practice on several subsequent occasions, on various dates on and between 6 and 29 April;
13. By letters dated 5 April, 11 May and 17 June 2004, you were asked by Forster Dean,solicitors acting on Ms S’s behalf, to provide them with your records of treatment of
14. You provided Ms S’s records to Forster Dean on a date between 28 June 2004 and 5 July 2004;
15. In providing Ms S’s records in response to the request in paragraph 13 on that date you failed:
a. to provide the records within a reasonable time;
b. to comply with your obligation under the Data Protection Act 1998 to provide the records within 40 days of the request of the data subject;
And that in relation to the facts and matters alleged you have been guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.
Signed: Dated: 4 August 2005
Executive Officer (Regulation)
Clerk to the Investigating Committee
Note to the Public: These are allegations that have yet to be considered by the Professional
Conduct Committee. It should not be assumed that these allegations have been, or will be,
admitted by the respondent chiropractor or will be found proven by the Professional Conduct
The case was thrown out by the Professional Conduct Committee however GCC costs and Monicas costs, costs to the chiropractic profession were in the region of £120,000.
Too many of these type of case have come before the PCC when they could all have been sorted out with a few phone calls. Michael Hutchinson, Kola Akindele, Rod McMillon and Desmond Pim are a few more spurious cases where the lives of chiropractors have been turned upside down on the whim of a few people who seem to be lacking in common sense and basic understanding of why chiropractors do certain things.