Doctor found not to have been dishonest by the MPTS Tribunal
December 5, 2022
Dr Mutti a leading oncologist had been referred to the GMC by his then employers, The University of Salford and two NHS Trusts. The GMC’s investigation took approximately 5 years and the hearing lasted almost two weeks in November and December 2022
Jason MacAdam instructed by Evan Wright and Valentina Oldham of JMW solicitors acting for the Italian based doctor, secured a finding that Dr Mutti had not acted dishonestly when applying for clinical posts, creating his web entry for his university employer and compiling research grants.
Notwithstanding that Dr Mutti was too unwell to attend and give evidence during the hearing the Tribunal accepted Mr MacAdam’s submissions that the evidence presented by the council did not establish that Dr Mutti had at any stage acted dishonestly.
The Tribunal found that Dr Mutti did not have a PhD. However, because he had completed all of the academic/research requirements for the award of PhD but had never undertaken the administrative process of formally applying for a PhD award/certificate, the Tribunal accepted Mr MacAdam’s submission that the council had failed to prove that Dr Mutti was dishonest and concluded that Dr Mutti had genuinely believed that he had a PhD when applying for clinical posts and completing applications.
The inclusion in his biography for The University of Salford website and grant applications, that the doctor was the current rather than a past Chair of a Scientific committee, the Tribunal considered to be a significant departure from paragraph 71 of GMP. Nevertheless, the Tribunal similarly accepted Mr MacAdam’s submissions, that the evidence presented by the GMC demonstrated that the Doctor’s reference had not been deliberate and were relatively minor inaccuracies that were more consistent with a lack of attention to detail or carelessness.
The Tribunal found that Dr Mutti’s actions did not meet the threshold of being misconduct that could be regarded as serious and therefore did not amount to misconduct and so the doctor’s fitness to practise medicine was not impaired, but a warning should be imposed.
