A surgeon who failed to mention his suspension in the United Kingdom on his application for an American licence to practise has been struck off for dishonesty.
Mahesh Goel received a one year suspension from the General Medical Council 12 months ago for inadvertently removing the only healthy kidney of a patient who later died. He would have been eligible to resume work this month, but a GMC review hearing heard that Mr Goel had falsely answered a question about previous suspensions on a licence application form sent to the West Virginia Board of Medicine.
Mr Goel's original suspension arose from the death of Graham Reeves in March 2000. Mr Reeves died five weeks after an operation at the Prince Philip Hospital in Llanelli, during which Mr Goel removed his healthy left kidney instead of the diseased right organ. Mr Goel, a registrar, and John Roberts, the consultant urologist and specialist overseeing Mr Reeves's treatment, were later charged with manslaughter at Cardiff Crown Court, but both were later acquitted.
Mr Roberts told police that he may have looked at the patient's x ray pictures back to front. The doctors' acquittal came after the prosecution's expert witness told the court that the myocardial infarctions Mr Reeves had had after his operation might have occurred even if the correct kidney had been removed (BMJ 2002;325:9).
They were nevertheless charged with serious professional misconduct by the GMC and were given one year suspensions (BMJ 2004;328:246). Mr Roberts, 62, has since retired, but Mr Goel, 42, continued to keep abreast of practice, attending conferences and seeking out clinical attachments to observe senior surgeons at work.
He told the GMC's fitness to practise panel, which routinely assesses doctors coming to the end of suspensions, that he had since developed a protocol that would help him avoid surgical errors in future. But the panel had received a complaint from the West Virginia Board of Medicine, who turned down Mr Goel's April 2004 application for a licence to practise there after finding that he falsely answered a question about disciplinary action in other jurisdictions.
Mr Goel told the panel that he had misunderstood the question, thinking that his suspension in the United Kingdom was irrelevant. But the panel found that the question was "entirely clear and not open to misinterpretation."
The question was: "Have you ever in any jurisdiction for any reason had limitations, restrictions or conditions placed upon your licence to practice, or had your licence to practice suspended, revoked or subjected to any kind of disciplinary action, including censure, reprimand or probation?"
The panel's chairman, Professor Jack Crane, acknowledged that Mr Goel had "supportive testimonials from your professional colleagues who recommend that your registration be reinstated," but he noted that "none of the testimonials mention the events in West Virginia."
Directing that Mr Goel's name be struck from the register, Professor Crane said: "Notwithstanding that your false declaration was a single act of dishonesty, the panel considers it to be so serious that a further period of suspension would not be an appropriate sanction." Mr Goel has 28 days in which to lodge an appeal.