Ex-haematologist "abused position of trust" by making patient retract complaint

Monday 08 November 2021

A former haematologist has had his medical registration suspended for 12 months after a medical tribunal found he had pressured a patient into retracting a complaint.

Dr Christopher Mattock was the only Consultant in Haematology and Blood Transfusion at the Hospital from 1993 until his resignation in 2019, at which time he officially retired from medical practice.

In September 2017, Patient A, whose treatment he had been involved in since 2011, lodged a complaint against him.

On 18 October 2017, the patient alleged that during a consultation her husband attended, he had coerced her into signing a retraction letter referring to her complaint by saying he would not see her as patient and wouldn’t be her friend, before sending it to the Hospital, dishonestly stating that the letter clarified her position.

Pictured: Dr Christopher Mattock was the only Consultant in Haematology and Blood Transfusion at the Hospital from 1993 until his resignation on 2019.

Contacted by the hospital in December 2017, the patient told them the letter had been signed following coercion from Dr Mattock, prompting the hospital to launch an investigation, which led him to be referred to the General Medical Council (GMC).

The tribunal considered Patient A had no reason to act in a malicious way towards Dr Mattock because, after the complaint which led to the GMC referral, she had received the treatment that she needed and wanted, which had been arranged by Dr Mattock, and which was the main objective of her September 2017 complaint.

They also acknowledged Dr Mattock’s “good character”, which they said meant it was less likely he had acted in the way alleged.

“There is ample evidence that Dr Mattock is an excellent and highly respected clinician who strives to do his best for his patients,” they wrote. 

They added, however, that he had been “very careful, and at times guarded” when giving evidence and that his answers has been “constructed to support his case”, as opposed to “transparent”.

Pictured: The Tribunal found the haematologist’s conduct was designed to coerce Patient A into signing the Retraction Letter.

They concluded he wanted to remove the “adverse situation” created by the complaint, adding there was enough evidence that he thought it would be difficult to work with Patient A if the complaint against him was pursued.

The Tribunal also determined Dr Mattock had used terminology to the effect that if Patient A did not sign the Retraction Letter, he "would not be her friend" and "would not want to see her again as a patient."

They said they had however been unable to find evidence of him having been rude, although he had inappropriately told the patient the “hospital was bearing down on him”.

The Tribunal found the haematologist’s conduct was designed to coerce Patient A into signing the Retraction Letter, and get the outcome he wanted as opposed to the course of action she intended.

They further found he must have known he had coerced Patient A because it was a “key step” in the course of conduct he had undertaken since learning of the complaint and that sending the letter to the Deputy Director of Operations at the Hospital, knowing so, was clearly “dishonest”. 

When discussing the sanction to impose on Dr Mattock, a representative of the GMC said he had “abused his position of trust and violated Patient A’s right to complain, putting his own interests and needs ahead of hers”. He suggested erasing Dr Mattock’s name from the medical register, arguing his behaviour was “fundamentally incompatible with continued registration”.

Dr Mattock’s lawyer, however, described the erasure as “disproportionate”, arguing the dishonesty was confined to a single incident in “36 years of diligent practice”.

He noted there had been no clinical failure, and that Dr Mattock had continued to hold Patient A’s best clinical interests at heart. 

Pictured: Dr Mattock’s lawyer argued the dishonesty was confined to a single incident in “36 years of diligent practice”.

The Tribunal said Dr Mattock had shown “sufficient insight” as to the seriousness of his behaviour and the consequences for patients, the public and the profession, as well as “acknowledging, and deeply regretting, the wider consequences of his actions”. 

They also took into account that, even though he had retired from practice, Dr Mattock had since attended training courses and workshops to gain a better understanding of how to manage complaints and professional interactions.

“The Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Mattock accepted his own culpability and that his remorse was genuine,” they added.

They subsequently decided to suspend him for 12 months - the maximum length of suspension the Tribunal could impose - as they were satisfied his misconduct, which was described as “an isolated incident in a long and unblemished career” and “very much out of character from Dr Mattock’s usual high standards and patient centred approach”, was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. 

Given no concerns had been raised about any other “repetition”, Dr Mattock’s clinical practice or the safety of patients, the Tribunal concluded a review hearing would serve no “useful purpose” and didn’t order that such a hearing take place.