The High Court dismissed a request made by the management and a Director of a cosmetic clinic in Dublin for specific documents from a Medical Council committee. RAS Medical Clinic, also known as Auralia Cosmetic Clinic, along with its Director and chief surgeon Dr Ahmed Salman, sought the paperwork in an attempt to contest the Preliminary Proceedings Committee’s (PPC) decision to probe the clinic’s hiring of Dr Maher Anous.
Dr Anous is alleged to have improperly examined a female patient during his tenure at the clinic, despite not being licenced as a medical professional in Ireland when the incident took place. He was awarded a medical licence to work in California, but this was reportedly rescinded in August 2021.
Judge Mary Rose Gearty ruled on a preliminary point in the case, stating that the claimants have no right to the trio of document types they desired from the Medical Council and the PPC. She added that the paperwork already shared by the defendants with the claimants is adequate.
In 2021, the clinic, situated on Nangor Road, Dublin 12, in the Parkwest Business Park, was informed by the Medical Council that an investigation was underway regarding a complaint by a woman who had been seen at the surgery by the physician.
Reportedly, Dr Anous was on the verge of getting registered with the Medical Council when he carried out the examination, but the registration was yet to be finalised. It is also suggested that he concealed the fact that he was facing disciplinary proceedings back in California.
Dr Salman faced a complaint made by the Medical Council for allegedly hiring the unregistered Dr Anous. The Council passed the complaint to its PPC for further examination.
Dr Salman strongly denies any misconduct on his part and maintains that the clinic didn’t purposely employ a doctor without a licence. He further argues that the PPC’s decision to conduct an investigation against him is unwarranted and must be rescinded.
The challenge to the PPC’s decision asserts that it was unfair for those Medical Council members who submitted the complaint to the PPC to also be present at PPC meetings. It’s argued that this contradicts principles of natural and fair justice, and limits the chances of receiving a unbiased inquiry.
The claim mentions that the PPC cannot serve as an impartial adjudicator in its own case nor can it independently assess the complaint against Dr Salman.
Dr Salman has indicated that the Professional Practices Committee (PPC) has demanded certain information from him, including data relating to another medical professional’s employment. The doctor argues that such a request is not justified.
In their legal proceedings, the persons involved are requesting a variety of orders and rulings, one of which includes blocking the PPC from evaluating matters connected to Dr Salman and brought forward by the Medical Council.
The involved parties, in an initial plea, desired directives mandating the defendants to present certain pertinent documents they believed were required to pursue their case.
The type of data requested includes documentation, records, reports, and policies pertinent to any deliberation involving the non-coincidence of Medical Council and PPC memberships, principally in instances where the council itself was the plaintiff. They also requested information linked to the ratio of complaints initiated by the council compared to those submitted by the public and referred by the PPC to the council’s Fitness to Practice Committee.
The defendants disputed the request, arguing it was inapplicable. The plea was dismissed by Justice Geary, who stated that the applicants had not demonstrated that the information and documents provided by the defendants were insufficient for their case.
– Tune in to our Inside Politics Podcast for current analysis and conversation
– Register for alerts to get top news, opinion, and analysis straight to your mobile
– Keep up to date with The Irish Times by joining us on WhatsApp.