Ophthalmologist who filed 99 claims against NHS trusts acted vexatiously and wasted resources, GMC says

An ophthalmologist who filed 99 employment tribunal claims against 15 NHS trusts around England within 10 months has been found guilty of misconduct by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

Farhan Hussain Zaidi alleged that, when he applied for consultant posts, the trusts discriminated against him on grounds of religion, race, and age and because he blew the whistle over patient safety concerns. He issued 76 separate claims against Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London alone.

The tribunal concluded that his claims, filed between October 2012 and July 2013 and later withdrawn, made “a number of very serious allegations against colleagues,” including NHS managers, without producing any reasonable objective evidence to support them.

The General Medical Council originally alleged that Zaidi had made the claims vexatiously, but by the time of the hearing it was no longer arguing that the claims were issued in bad faith, nor that they were ill founded. It maintained, however, that Zaidi had acted vexatiously after issuing the claims and that they wasted NHS resources and were intended to elicit unwarranted financial reward.

However, the tribunal concluded that if the GMC did not challenge Zaidi’s good faith or the merit of his claims then the allegation that he intended to elicit unwarranted financial reward could not be found proved.

The tribunal’s chairman, Stephen Miller, told Zaidi, “The tribunal noted that your conduct was repeated over a period of time and considered that it will have harmed some of your colleagues and wasted NHS resources. Your action took place in the context of your applications for consultant posts and involved your strongly held views on patient safety issues.”

Miller said that Zaidi’s “misconduct in impugning the integrity of colleagues and making ill founded and alarmist statements about the risk to patients” was so serious that it would erode public confidence in the profession had the tribunal not found his fitness to practise impaired.

The tribunal found that he had told two trusts that he was proposing to refer them to the Care Quality Commission but would not do so if they agreed to, in one case, a “reasonable” financial settlement and, in the other, a settlement of more than £100 000 (€130 000; $145 000).

The GMC asked the tribunal to suspend Zaidi from practice for a period. But his lawyer argued that public confidence might be undermined if there were “any suggestion that a doctor should be sanctioned for bringing an employment tribunal claim or raising patient safety concerns,” and the tribunal decided to let him continue practising with conditions, including working with a mentor, which were imposed for 12 months.

Miller noted a large number of “highly supportive” testimonials from colleagues and statements from his two current mentors. “These speak to your excellence as a clinician and your integrity, honesty, and respect for patients and colleagues during the period before and after the events in questions.”

Zaidi also gave evidence of his “remorse and shame” over his behaviour, and Miller said that the tribunal believed the risk of repetition to be low. “The tribunal also noted that there is a public interest in retaining the services of a good clinician,” he added.