Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Hearing date from
20 Sep 2021
Hearing date to
05 Oct 2021
Location of hearing
This is a virtual hearing. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us 14 days' notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about observing a hearing
GMC reference number
Area of practice
Kettering, Boston, Lincoln, South Kesteven, East Lindsey

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that between 23 March 2017 and 30 August 2017, Dr Pascaline claimed payment for work carried out through the Waiting List Initiative (WLI) during her contracted hours at Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (KGH) and that her actions resulted in her receiving an overpayment of £3262.50. It is alleged that Dr Pascaline was dishonest in that she knew that she was not entitled to claim the additional hours for WLI work.

It is further alleged that Dr Pascaline worked shifts at United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust at the same time as hours when she was contracted to work at KGH. It is alleged that Dr Pascaline’s actions were dishonest as she knew that she was already contracted to work at KGH.



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 pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

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.