Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were dismissed. The claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, as he falsified patient records, inappropriately cancelled care, and inadequately documented care. The respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and the decision to dismiss was within the range of responses of a reasonable employer.

The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct (falsifying patient records, inappropriately cancelling care, and inadequate documentation). The respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and the dismissal decision fell within the range of responses of a reasonable employer.

• •reason for dismissal - gross misconduct due to falsifying patient records, inappropriately cancelling care and inadequately documenting care
• •fairness of the investigation process
• •acceptance of risk by claimant to patient safety
• •appeal process fairness

RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No: 2401201/2020 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M P Poullis Respondent: Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: Liverpool in person On: 20 – 30 September 2022 and in chambers on 19, 20 October 2022 and 11 and 30 November 2022. Before: Employment Judge Aspinall Representation Claimant: Mr Boyd, Counsel Respondent: Mr Gorton, King’s Counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT Summary of Decision 1. The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal fails. The claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. Dr Morris had a genuine belief held on reasonable grounds that the claimant had falsified patient records, inappropriately cancelled care and inadequately documented care. The respondent had carried out such investigation as was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case at investigatory, disciplinary and appeal stages. The decision to dismiss was not a decision that no reasonable employer could be said to have reached, mitigation was considered but outweighed by the reasonably formed view that the claimant had not accepted the risk, inherent in his conduct, to patient safety and so could not be trusted not to engage in such conduct again, having already done so in a case in February 2019 whilst under investigation. The appeal process was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. 2. The claimant had offered to submit to final written warning at appeal but the appeal officer Mr Jones formed the reasonably held view that the claimant had not accepted the risk to patient safety inherent in his conduct but had sought throughout the appeal to both admit and apologise for his conduct whilst also (i) blaming and seeking to incriminate others and (ii) seeking to justify his conduct as being free from risk of harm to patients. The appeal outcome fell within the r…