Pre hearing information
The tribunal will reconvene to consider the case of Dr Andelic. The tribunal has previously found proved that, in July 2013, Dr Andelic prescribed medication for Patient A and deleted from Patient A’s medical records that he had prescribed the medication.
The tribunal also found proved that, on a number of occasions between January 2013 and July 2014, Dr Andelic prescribed medication in Patient B’s name without having a consultation with Patient B, in the knowledge that Patient B did not require the medication. He also deleted from Patient B’s medical records that prescriptions had been issued, and inappropriately signed for and picked up the medication either himself, or in the name of Patient B’s son, Patient D.
Further, it was found proved that, on two occasions in 2014, Dr Andelic deleted and replaced the issue date on a prescription when he no longer worked at the medical practice from which it was issued, and knew that he no longer worked there. His record keeping was inadequate in that he failed to record exactly how many tablets had been prescribed for Patient B, and he also failed to notify Patient B’s GP about the private prescriptions he had issued to Patient B.
The tribunal also found proved that, on three occasions, Dr Andelic issued prescriptions in the name of Patient C and then deleted from Patient C’s records that he had prescribed the medication.
It was also found proved that, after Dr Andelic had signed voluntary undertakings on 18 July 2014, he failed to notify his employer that he was subject to undertakings not to prescribe opiate medication and issued prescriptions for such medication on a number of occasions.
Further, it was found proved that, in 2014 and 2015, Dr Andelic issued prescriptions for Patients E and F and continued to work as a medical practitioner on a number of occasions when he was suspended from the Medical Register.
It was found proved that Dr Andelic’s conduct in respect of a number of the above matters was dishonest.
The tribunal will consider whether, on the basis of the facts found proved, Dr Andelic’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his misconduct.
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 email@example.com 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.