A body corporate fitness to practise case against a Specsavers franchise partner alleged to have seen walk-in patients in the latter-stages of lockdown has been dropped just days before it was scheduled to be heard.
The hearing involving Northants VisionPlus had been scheduled between February 20 and March 3 2023. A director of the franchisee was accused of failing to safeguard the welfare of patients and staff and permitting or facilitating in person consultations that were non-essential contrary to government and sector health protection regulations that were in force at the time. The committee said these allegations not only amounted to misconduct to deficient professional performance.
Optician asked the General Optical Council why the case had been removed from hearing listings. It said: ‘The case was referred back to the case examiners for reconsideration (via rule 16) and they had decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of a finding of impairment.’
Rule 16 of the General Optical Council rules on fitness to practise cases can be found below.
Optician has requested additional comment from the GOC.
Termination of referral
16.—(1) Where an allegation against a registrant has been referred to the Fitness to Practise Committee under section 13D(6)(b) (reference by registrar following direction), the case examiners may review the referral.
(2) Where case examiners are to review a referral under paragraph (1), the registrar must first write to the maker of the allegation giving the maker of the allegation the opportunity to submit any comments within a period of 28 days starting with the date of the registrar’s letter.
(3) Not before the expiry of the period of 28 days referred to in paragraph (2), the case examiners must—
- (a) consider the referral, and any comments received from the maker of the allegation; and
- (b) decide whether the allegation ought not to be considered by the Fitness to Practise Committee, and give reasons for their decision.
(4) Where the case examiners decide that the allegation ought not to be considered by the Fitness to Practise Committee, they must give a direction to that effect to the registrar, and the Fitness to Practise Committee must not consider that allegation.
(5) Where the case examiners give a direction under paragraph (4), as soon as reasonably practicable, the registrar must give written notification of the case examiners’ decision, together with the reasons for that decision, to—
(a) the registrant;
(b) the maker of the allegation; and
(c) any other person the registrar considers has an interest in receiving a notification, including the registrant’s current employer (if known to the registrar).
