N was alleged to have been working for two different employers, with cross over in the timings of her remote shifts. Sequentus provided advice and assistance to N, through to receiving the Case Examiners’ decision of no case to answer on the basis that there was no policy preventing her from being employed by two different surgeries and that there was no evidence that any overlap had caused patient harm.
CE decision – no case to answer
Khaled Hussain-Dupré
Cases
Author
Khaled Hussain-Dupré
Category
Cases
Date
February, 2025
N was alleged to have been working for two different employers, with cross over in the timings of her remote
NEWS
Related News
M faced allegations of fraudulent expenses claims totalling more then £70,000 over a number of years. The case involved understanding
Khaled Hussain-Dupré
Cases
Khaled successfully argued that the Council’s evidence was insufficient for a panel to find that the registrant had deliberately administered
Khaled Hussain-Dupré
Cases
K faced allegations of neglecting a patient’s safety and the regulator sought an interim suspension order. Ben highlighted the extensive
Benjamin Bardell
Cases
S was the subject of an interim suspension order. Putting before the panel the findings of a coroner’s court and
Benjamin Bardell
Cases