Pre hearing information
The hearing took place from 11 February to 14 February 2019 and adjourned part-heard. The tribunal will reconvene on 25 June 2019 to consider the matter, with the hearing scheduled for a further five days.
The allegation has been amended upon commencement of the hearing as findings of fact have been made by the Tribunal. It has been admitted and found proved that Dr Monibi worked as a Foundation Year 1 doctor with North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust at Peterborough City Hospital between the period of August 2016 and December 2017. It has also been admitted and found proved that Dr Monibi recorded an examination in Patient A’s medical records on 3 November 2017 and recorded an examination in Patient B’s medical records on 6 November 2017.
As such, the tribunal will continue to inquire into the allegation that Dr Monibi failed to examine Patient A on 3 November 2017 and Patient B on 6 November 2017 and presented her findings as if she had examined the patients when discussing their care with another doctor. It is also alleged that during a meeting with two other doctors on 8 November 2017, Dr Monibi stated that she had examined both Patient A and Patient B when she knew she had not examined either patient. It is further alleged that Dr Monibi’s actions were dishonest.
The above reflects the allegation as it stands when the hearing was adjourned.
This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.
All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.
If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 0161 250 6868.
In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.