Professor Tony Maden cleared on two counts in insurance expert witness complaints

Maden acted as an expert witness on behalf of law firm BLM and insurer client Ecclesiastical in the two cases, as previously reported by Post.

The GMC told Maden in its correspondence on the cases: “The case examiners have considered the information provided by [redacted] and decided to conclude this case with no further action. We do understand that this type of enquiry is stressful. I am grateful for your help in putting together all of the information the case examiners needed to make their decision.”

The expert examiner looking at one case said: “Dr Maden composed a detailed expert medical report using a variety of sources including face-to-face interview. Dr Maden described his duty to the Court clearly and presented relevant information in a form suitable for use in Court proceedings.
[ …]
In my opinion the overall standard of care was not below the standard expected of a reasonably competent General Adult Psychiatrist.”

The expert report added: “I consider that there is no binding requirement to meet an individual patient prior to preparation of a medical report. It is self-evident that in some cases this would not be practical or even possible.

“I would have expected Dr Maden to have considered the letter of instruction and summary medical records relating to Patient [redacted] and to have been satisfied that he had access to sufficient documentation to provide a reasonable opinion.”

On the other case the expert stated: “I am satisfied that it was indeed appropriate for Dr Maden to base all his findings on one consultation with Patient [redacted] when supported by additional documents listed in paragraph 13 of his report.”

The GMC, which regulates the medical profession, will take no further action against Maden in these cases.

The GMC continues to review other matters relating to Maden’s fitness to practise, according to the documents.

In its case examiners decision, the GMC confirmed it was unable to access privileged legal information held by BLM and Ecclesiastical in either case, as set out in the regulator’s responses to the complainants.

In a letter to one complainant, who had alleged their settlement offer was significantly lowered based on Maden’s advice despite not having met face-to-face, it stated: “To assist their investigation, the GMC asked BLM (and through them Ecclesiastical Insurance), to provide copies of the instructions that had been sent to Dr Maden. In response Ecclesiastical Insurance said this was legally privileged information that could not be disclosed.”

It added: “The GMC took legal advice and it was confirmed that legally privileged material of this nature cannot be disclosed. Dr Maden advised the GMC that he had not retained the instructions he had been sent by BLM.”

The GMC further noted in this case: “Dr Maden’s fitness to practise is not called into question by a decision made by the legal firm who had instructed him.”