General Osteopathic Council

Members of the team have appeared before the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC), representing Osteopaths before their regulatory body, and also on appeal at the High Court. As with many of the health care regulators, the ‘overarching objective’ is public protection, including promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession through practice and conduct standards. These standards are set out in a statutory code and the GOsC has also published guidance in relation to them.

Our healthcare disciplinary team are familiar with the legislation, rules, and guidance of the GOsC, and they advise in relation to each case at all stages. This includes assistance in the drafting of ‘observations’ by the Osteopath at the investigation stage, advice in relation to the acceptance of any factual allegations, and whether to accept any allegation of unacceptable professional conduct (UPC).

Cases include:

-Successfully represented an Osteopath on appeal, who had appeared before the PCC, having pleaded guilty to possession of an offensive weapon and received a sentence of 6 months conditional discharge. The appeal was allowed, the decision of the PCC was quashed, and the case was not remitted for a re-hearing.

-Successfully represented an Osteopath on appeal, where it was allowed due to a ‘serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings’ at the PCC. The Lay member of the PCC had questioned the Osteopath to such a degree and with such hostility that it rendered the PCC hearing unfair. It was held that “one of the committee member’s descent into the arena may so have hampered her ability properly to evaluate and weigh the evidence before her as to impair her judgment”.

-Appeared in a 4-day ‘remote’ contested hearing, representing an Osteopath on allegations of UPC before the PCC, which has been adjourned at the end of the ‘facts’ stage.

-Successful defence of an Osteopath who practices for a number of months without the requisite insurance, having been misadvised by his broker. The allegation was one of unprofessional conduct and the osteopath faced the possibility of significant sanctions. Ultimately the disciplinary committee found that the osteopath had not acted without integrity and went on to find that he was not guilty of unprofessional conduct.”