Unfair dismissal claims from doctor thrown out

A doctor who claimed he was unfairly dismissed following a review into Jersey Hospital's rheumatology department has had his case thrown out by a tribunal.

Dr Michael Richardson was suspended from his role at Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) in January 2022 over concerns around patient safety. Following an investigation into the service by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), he was dismissed in June 2025.

Richardson argued his suspension was unjustified, that he had been the subject of a "witch hunt", and that the report by the RCP was "fundamentally flawed".

The tribunal ruled his dismissal was fair and him returning to work would lead to a loss of public confidence in the health service.

Rheumatology covers more than 100 disorders, including autoimmune diseases and degenerative joint conditions.

The review by the RCP was conducted after deaths of 182 patients in Jersey's rheumatology department since 2019.

It found the entire service to be "well below" what would be considered acceptable, and even noted some patients were wrongly prescribed specialist drugs.

In the years since, it has been revealed five people were urged to contact the States of Jersey Police over the way they were treated while receiving care there.

Richardson was the clinical lead when he was suspended, after concerns were raised by a junior doctor about a ward round the pair had undertaken together on 17 January 2022.

The tribunal heard the junior doctor had "considered the ward round to be poor, with inadequate review of patients, clinical notes, blood test results and imaging".

The junior doctor resigned on 20 January 2022 and, at 17:30 that day, Richardson was suspended with immediate effect.

Richardson said that no reasons were given for his suspension initially, although the following day these were set out in a letter of suspension from then HCJ medical director Patrick Armstrong MBE.

In it, Armstrong wrote the allegations were deemed "so serious to warrant immediate suspension", and the suspension was to "protect the safety of patients or other staff".

Armstrong added that allegations against Richardson included that he had exhibited "wilful, careless, inappropriate, and unethical behaviour that is likely to compromise standards of care", and that he had failed "to give proper support to other members of staff including junior doctors".

Three years later, and following the review into his department, Richardson was dismissed.

He submitted a claim form alleging unfair dismissal, age discrimination and disability discrimination against the States Employment Board.

In it, he stated he wanted to return to work and compensation for the dismissal.

Current medical director Simon West detailed the reasons for dismissal in a letter to Richardson on 13 June 2025.

West wrote: "A return to practice by you would seriously undermine the reputation of HCJ and, by extension, the Government of Jersey, leading to a loss of public confidence in HCJ which we cannot tolerate."

He added the relationship between HCJ and Richardson had "irretrievably broken down".

The tribunal panel, made up of Dr Elena Moran, Lisa Thorpe, and Robert Douglas, ruled there was "ample evidence to support" Mr West's claim.

The tribunal judgement acknowledged there had not been a proper dismissal process but said the decision to dismiss Richardson was still fair and reasonable.

The judgement said: "The principal reason for the dismissal was the impact on public confidence and reputational damage of a return to work by Dr Richardson irrespective of his competence."

The judgement also explained Richardson's claims of age and disability discrimination failed.

It said he did not prove that lengthy suspension put older employees at a disadvantage, nor did he prove he had a protected characteristic disability as the only impairment he pleaded was stress.

While the tribunal found Richardson to be a credible witness, it said his evidence was treated with "considerable caution".

It said he had a tendency to "exaggerate things that put him in a good light and diminish things that put him in a bad light".

It added he appeared to only "view things only from his own perspective" and was unable to reflect on how the rheumatology service's "poor treatment" impacted patients and their families.

It added: "He is only concerned with his own position and the impact on his own reputation. Overall, we found Dr Richardson demonstrated a tendency to prioritise his own position and reputation over the interests and concerns of others."

The judgement rejected Richardson's claim of a "witch hunt" or that he was a "scapegoat" for systemic failings.

Following the ruling, Richardson asked for leave to appeal and for the findings of the tribunal to be withheld until the appeal was finished.

However, the tribunal ruled those documents could be published without affecting the appeal.

Follow BBC Jersey on X, Facebook and Instagram. Send your story ideas to channel.islands@bbc.co.uk.