PANEL CHAIRMEN, Mr M. ZUKE.
MEMBERS MRS P.J. GREENMAN
MR T.J. LANE.
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS MR I.
R. SCOTT
COUNSEL FOR BUPA. MRS LAURA COX Q.C, MR P. EPSTEIN.
THE TRIBUNAL VERDICT
( Please note that full copies of the verdict are available
on request)
The law requires that reasonable
belief is proved, the applicants ( BUPA Seven) based their case for reasonable
belief on the medical evidence of the resident E.P, this is clear from the
written submissions, witness statements and the fact that so much time was
devoted to this issue during cross examination, in short if the applicants
were telling the truth about the drug abuse of E.P, why would they lie about
other incidents of abuse?
The Tribunals conclusions on this crucial evidence are below.
The Verdict conclusions on the
overdosing of the resident E.P,
(There is no reference what so ever that this evidence
was before the Tribunal.)
The further findings of the Tribunal on the abuse of residents are as follows in the red sections.
1. The Social Services inquiry report upheld the allegations in full as did an independent pharmacists report that was commissioned by the inquiry team, BUPA however carried out their own internal audit which found nothing of concern.
1a. The Verdict conclusions on
the findings of Social Services and BUPA’s internal drug audits
“ There was little difference between the Social Services Drug Audit
and the Audit carried out by BUPA, both of these Audits we consider to be
independent”
2. The applicants statements to Social Services were made prior to the death of the resident D.H, they could clearly not raise concerns about a death that had not yet occurred during these interviews.
2a. The Verdict conclusions on
the death of D.H,
The applicants are severely criticised for stating that abuse had contributed
to the death of D.H and are considered to have exaggerated, as had it been
true there would be a record of it in their witness statements to Social Services.
3. All of the applicants witnessed residents left for up to eighteen hours in urine soaked beds without attention, food or drink. It is clear that people left in such conditions of neglect would develop urine burns and bed sores. We never referred to these eighteen hour periods of neglect as being residents not attended to promptly.
3a. The Verdict conclusions on
neglected residents,
“ We do not accept that people could develop sores in such conditions,
we accept residents were not always attended to promptly”
4. The kicking of the resident B.M, Maria Keenaghan fully denies that she kicked this resident, Linda Clark gave clear evidence that she did so and that she reported this immediately, therefore one of these accounts has to be accepted and the other rejected, there was no evidence submitted on the force of the kick or any possible motive for the assault.
4a The Verdict
Conclusions on the kicking of B.M,
“ We accept that Maria Keenaghan did kick B.M but did not use any degree
of force and did so as the resident B.M had kicked her first”
5. There were numerous witness statements from relatives, care staff and visitors to the home, such as the hairdresser which were put before the Tribunal as they upheld the applicants original allegations.
5a The Tribunal
conclusions on the independent witness statements,
( There is no reference that this evidence was ever
before the Tribunal)
6. Eileen Chubb states she saw Maria Keenaghan push the resident F.C hard enough for her to fall forward, she was unable to state the exact date this took place but it was reported to Carol Jones, Maria Keenaghan totally denied this and states she could not have done it as she was in the kitchen on the unspecified date, no evidence on the motive for this incident was put before the Tribunal.
6a. The Tribunal Conclusions on
the pushing assault on F.C,
“ We believe that Maria Keenaghan did push F.C, but only did so in a
moments frustration”
7. The witness statements of Karen Hook made to Social Services and submitted to the Tribunal and listed in the index bundles.
7a The Tribunal Conclusions on
the evidence of Karen Hook.
“ Mrs Hook alleges she made these statements and BUPA deny this was
so and put this to Mrs Hook during cross examination, as these statements
are not in existence we find for BUPA on this matter”
8. A M.A.R sheet has a small section for the person who is administering drugs to put their signature, if the drugs are not given for any reason then this same space is used for stating why, therefore you could not possibly enter both a signature and a reason for non administration as it would clearly be at odds, Eileen Chubb reports to Carole Jones that Maria Keenaghan has signed for drugs that have not been given and Carole Jones tells her to write over Maria Keenahans signature a reason for non administration.
8a The Tribunal Conclusions on
falsifying medical records,
“ Eileen Chubb has exaggerated this Mrs Jones did not ask her to falsify
the sheet only to write in the box a reason for non administration”
Summary.
The
above are just some examples of the evidence that was omitted from the verdict
and if you think the above are perverse then I can only ask that you read
the Tribunal findings on the harassment which take perverse beyond the edge
of reason
