Our client faced a number of allegations in relation to consent, clinical justification, failure to properly explain the technique and purpose and inadequate record keeping.

The Chiropractor accepted the allegations of poor note keeping but denied the remainder of the allegations. Thanks to the skilful cross-examination of Jonathan Goldring (Counsel) the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) commented that the complainant was inconsistent and they could place little reliance upon his evidence.

The GCC and defence case relied heavily upon expert evidence.  In their findings the PCC found that although clear about the high standards expected from a chiropractor, the GCC’s expert ‘…did not always address the issue of what would be expected of the reasonable chiropractor…’, which is the required test.  In contrast, the committee found the evidence of the defence expert (Dr Paul McCrossin) was of ‘considerable assistance… measured and fair’.  He put both sides of the argument, provided helpful opinion and applied the standards of the ordinary, reasonable chiropractor.

All of the allegations that had been denied were found not proved by the PCC. In relation to the note-keeping allegations, which had been accepted, the PCC found that they did not amount to unacceptable professional conduct relying on the case of Spencer v The General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin) (LINK to our previous article) and the case was dismissed.

This case again shows the importance of showing insight and accepting allegations where failings have been made, along with having good expert advice.  Where appropriate, being realistic and reasonable can often serve a defendant better than fighting every aspect of a case.