Dr Thomas Plimmer v General Medical Council [2024] EWHC 3343 (Admin)
Summary
Dr. Thomas Plimmer is a general practitioner whose name was erased from the medical register by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal due to misconduct and impaired fitness to practice. The misconduct included non-consensual sexual contact, sending unsolicited sexual images, and engaging in sexual acts at work. Dr. Plimmer challenged the Tribunal’s findings on three allegations and the determination on impairment and sanction.
Tribunal’s Findings: The Tribunal found Dr. Plimmer guilty of serious misconduct, including non-consensual sexual acts and sending unsolicited sexual content. It also found his fitness to practice impaired due to adverse mental health, including Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD).
Grounds of Appeal: Dr. Plimmer appealed on several grounds, arguing that the Tribunal’s findings on specific allegations were wrong and that the determination on impairment and sanction was flawed.
Court’s Analysis: The court upheld the Tribunal’s findings, emphasising the consistency of witness testimony and the credibility issues with Dr. Plimmer’s account. It found no procedural unfairness in the Tribunal’s approach.
Impairment and Sanction: The court agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that Dr. Plimmer’s misconduct was serious and incompatible with continued registration. It noted the pattern of misconduct over three years and the risk of relapse due to his health condition.
Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s decision to erase Dr. Plimmer’s name from the medical register was upheld, as it was necessary to maintain public confidence in the medical profession and uphold professional standards.
Tribunal’s Findings: The Tribunal found Dr. Plimmer guilty of serious misconduct, including non-consensual sexual acts and sending unsolicited sexual content. It also found his fitness to practice impaired due to adverse mental health, including Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD).
Grounds of Appeal: Dr. Plimmer appealed on several grounds, arguing that the Tribunal’s findings on specific allegations were wrong and that the determination on impairment and sanction was flawed.
Court’s Analysis: The court upheld the Tribunal’s findings, emphasising the consistency of witness testimony and the credibility issues with Dr. Plimmer’s account. It found no procedural unfairness in the Tribunal’s approach.
Impairment and Sanction: The court agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that Dr. Plimmer’s misconduct was serious and incompatible with continued registration. It noted the pattern of misconduct over three years and the risk of relapse due to his health condition.
Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s decision to erase Dr. Plimmer’s name from the medical register was upheld, as it was necessary to maintain public confidence in the medical profession and uphold professional standards.