Courts

Cosmetic clinic operator’s application to obtain Medical Council files is refused

Ms Justice Mary Rose Geary says applicants failed to show information it had been provided with by respondents was insufficient to make their case

High Court: In a ruling on a preliminary issue in the case, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty held that the applicants were not entitled to the discovery of three categories of documentation they wanted from the Medical Council and the PPC.
High Court: In a ruling on a preliminary issue in the case, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty held that the applicants were not entitled to the discovery of three categories of documentation they wanted from the Medical Council and the PPC.
Aodhan O'Faolain
Tue Mar 05 2024 - 21:51

The High Court has rejected an application by the operator and a director of a Dublin-based cosmetic clinic to be provided with certain documentation from a committee of the Medical Council.

The documentation was sought as part of a challenge by RAS Medical Clinic, trading as Auralia Cosmetic Clinic, and Dr Ahmed Salman, who is the clinic’s director and lead surgeon, against the Preliminary Proceedings Committee’s (PPC’s) decision to investigate the clinic’s employment of Dr Maher Anous.

Dr Anous is accused of inappropriately examining a female patient while employed by the clinic and was not registered to practise as a doctor in Ireland at the time of the incident. He had a certificate to practise medicine in California, which was revoked in August 2021, the court heard.

In a ruling on a preliminary issue in the case, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty held that the applicants were not entitled to the discovery of three categories of documentation they wanted from the Medical Council and the PPC.

READ MORE

The material was not necessary, the judge said, adding that documents the respondents have agreed to give to the applicants are sufficient.

In 2021, the clinic, located at Parkwest Business Park, Nangor Road, Dublin 12, was told the Medical Council was investigating a complaint by a woman who was examined at the surgery by the doctor.

At the time, it is claimed, Dr Anous was not registered with the Medical Council and was in the process of applying to be included on the register.

It is also alleged that Dr Anous had failed to disclose to the clinic that he was facing ongoing disciplinary proceedings in California, where he had worked for some time.

A complaint was made against Dr Salman by the Medical Council for allegedly engaging Dr Anous while he was not registered.

The council referred the complaint to its PPC for investigation.

Dr Salman denies any wrongdoing and says the clinic had not knowingly employed an unregistered doctor. Dr Salman says the PPC’s decision to investigate him is wrong and should be discontinued.

As part of the challenge against the PPC’s decision, it is claimed that persons on the Medical Council who referred the complaint to the PPC had also attended meetings of the PPC. This is in breach of fair and natural justice and denies him the possibility of receiving a fair investigation, it is claimed.

The PPC cannot act as judge in its own cause and cannot give independent consideration to the complaint against Dr Salman.

Dr Salman says the PPC also issued notices against him requiring him to provide it with certain details, including about the other doctor’s employment. Dr Salman claims this requirement is unreasonable.

In their judicial review proceedings, the applicants seek various orders and declarations, including an order restraining the PPC from considering the matter referred to it by the Medical Council relating to Dr Salman.

In a preliminary application, the applicants sought orders requiring the respondents to provide it with certain relevant documentation they claimed they require to advance their action.

The categories of material sought included documentation, records, reports and policies that are relevant to any consideration given to ensure that the membership of the Medical Council and the PPC would not overlap in cases where the council itself was the complainant.

It also sought material relevant to the proportion of complaints initiated by the council, compared to those brought by members of the public, which are referred by the PPC to the council’s Fitness to Practice Committee.

The respondents opposed the application on grounds that it was not relevant.

Ms Justice Geary rejected the application and said the applicants failed to show that information and documents it had been provided with by the respondents were insufficient to make their case.