Convicted sex criminal Dr Behrouz Alidoost + GMC's identification of doctors complained about

The request was partially successful.

Dear General Medical Council,

I have searched the MPTS database without success for the convicted sex criminal Dr Behrouz Alidoost. The following newspaper story dated 14 January 2020 says that he was struck off the medical register:

'Disgraced dirty doctor who sexually assaulted a patient and two other woman has been jailed in shame.

"Creepy" Behrouz Alidoost abused his position of trust and responsibility at a private clinic which helped people wanting to lose weight.

A court heard he molested one woman during a consultation and went on to subject two other victims to sex attacks.

Alidoost, 54, who has since been struck off the medical register, has now been jailed for two years after pleading guilty to six offences of sexual assault.'

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor...

1. Can you confirm that a MPT panel considered the behaviour of Dr Alidoost? If so, please provide the relevant dates that it sat.

2. I know that you remove decisions from the MPTS website after one year, but if the hearing concluded less than one year ago please provide me with a copy of the decision. If you cannot provide me with a copy of the decision, please provide me with all other information you hold that I am entitled to under FOIA concerning the erasure of Dr Alidoost's name from the medical register.

The newspaper story also includes this:

'The court heard the woman contacted the General Medical Council but was told she had not provided enough information to identify him, so no investigation was commenced at that point.'

3. Please provide figures for 2019/20 on the number of doctors complained about whom you were unable to identify because (i) complainants did not provide enough information; and (ii) any other reason.

Yours faithfully,

J Roberts

FOI, General Medical Council

Thank you for getting in touch. Please note this is an automated email.

We’ll get back to you as soon as we can with a further acknowledgement.
You’ll usually hear from us on the next working day, but it might take a
little longer during busy periods.

In the meantime, if you want any further information about the GMC, please
visit our website.

Thank you

Information Access team

General Medical Council

Email: [GMC request email]

Working with doctors Working for patients

The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.

show quoted sections

J Roberts left an annotation ()

More details from the news story:

'During one woman's first visit to the clinic, in Newcastle, he put a stethoscope on her back and a hand on the top of her breast and said it felt fine.

Mr Dunne [prosecuting] told Newcastle Crown Court: "She thought this was strange".

He asked her to walk to some weighing scales and he stood at her left and put his right hand on her bottom.

The defendant asked if she had a partner and how often she had sex.

He escorted her to the door at the end of the booking, pressing his palm against her bottom.

She found his behaviour concerning and creepy.

He offered to do some alternative therapy healing on a woman and went on to pull her underwear down, ask about her sexual preferences and sexually assault her. He then hugged her and "nuzzled into her neck and started making humming noises".

He pleaded guilty to six offences of sexual assault and Judge Penny Moreland jailed him for two years.'

FOI, General Medical Council

Dear J Roberts,

 

Your information request – IR1-2902155815

Thank you for your email dated 30 December, in which you ask for the
below:

 

1.  Can you confirm that a MPT panel considered the behaviour of Dr
Alidoost?  If so, please provide the relevant dates that it sat.

 

2.  I know that you remove decisions from the MPTS website after one year,
but if the hearing concluded less than one year ago please provide me with
a copy of the decision.  If you cannot provide me with a copy of the
decision, please provide me with all other information you hold that I am
entitled to under FOIA concerning the erasure of Dr Alidoost's name from
the medical register.

 

3.  Please provide figures for 2019/20 on the number of doctors complained
about whom you were unable to identify because (i) complainants did not
provide enough information; and (ii) any other reason.

 

How we will consider your request

We’re going to look at your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). This gives us 20 working days to respond but we’ll come back
to you as soon as we can.

 

Who to contact

Louise Gormley will be handling your request. If you have any questions
you can contact her via email at [1][email address].

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lauren Barrowcliffe

Information Access Team Assistant

 

[email address]

General Medical Council

3 Hardman Street

Manchester

M3 3AW

 

show quoted sections

Louise Gormley (0161 923 6311), General Medical Council

Our reference: IR1-2902155815

 

Dear J Roberts

 

Thank you for your email dated 30 December 2020, in which you request
information about Dr Behrouz Alidoost (GMC Number: 6138510) and
information about the number of doctors complained about ,whom we were
unable to identify because complainants did not provide enough
information.

 

In response to your request I can confirm that Dr Behrouz Alidoost was
erased from the register in 2017, following a Fitness to practise panel
hearing , the hearing determination can be found on the doctor’s entry on
our List of Registered Medical Practitioners: [1]LRMP entry - Dr Behrouz
Alidoost

 

As to your request for the number of doctors complained about ,whom we
were unable to identify because complainants did not provide enough
information, we don’t have a category for this, so we would have to carry
out manual checks to obtain this information.  

There is an exemption at section 12 of the FOIA, which states that we are
not required to comply with a request if we estimate that the cost of
doing so would exceed the appropriate limit, which in this case it would.
I provide further details of the exemption below.

The exemption 

The Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004
has set the ‘appropriate limit’ at £450 for public authorities such as the
GMC. This is equivalent to two and a half days work. In estimating the
cost the public authority can take into account the cost of determining,
locating, retrieving and extracting the information requested. We reserve
the right to refuse requests that would cost in excess of this limit and
will significantly impact on our business.

 

For 2019 and 2020 there are approximately 4300 closed complaints we would
have to review. We have estimated it would take approximately 5 minutes to
read through one complaint to establish if it related to a doctor
complained about, whom we were unable to identify, because the complainant
did not provide enough information. To read through all 4300 would take
approximately 358 hours. Based on an hourly rate of £25 per hour (which is
set by the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations
2004) this would cost us £8950. Your request would therefore cost us
significantly in excess of the ‘appropriate limit’ to process.  

 

Your right to appeal

 

I'm sorry I couldn’t provide all the information you requested. You can
appeal against this decision to Julian Graves, Information Access Manager.
 If you want to appeal, please set out your reasons and email
[2][email address]

 

You can also appeal to the Information Commissioner, the regulator of the
FOIA – we can provide more details about this if you need them.

 

Kind regards

 

Louise

 

Louise Gormley

Information Access Officer
Resources Directorate
 
Direct Line: 0161 923 6311
Email:        [3][email address]
Website:    [4]www.gmc-uk.org
Address:    Information Access Team
                 General Medical Council
                 3 Hardman Street

                 Manchester

                 M3 3AW

Working with doctors Working for patients

The General Medical Council helps to protect patients and improve medical
education and practice in the UK by setting standards for students and
doctors. We support them in achieving (and exceeding) those standards, and
take action when they are not met.

show quoted sections

J Roberts left an annotation ()

The determination goes on and on.

Here's a flavour:

'4.d. pulled down Miss A’s knickers without:

d.i. Miss A’s consent; Found Proved

d.ii. informing Miss A what you were about to do;

e. asked Miss A if she had ‘ever taken any nude photos’, or words to that effect; Found Proved

f. asked Miss A if she ‘liked anal’ whether she ‘had tried it…not even a bit’, or words to that effect; Found Proved

g. placed your hand above Miss A’s vaginal area and said it was ‘dry and needed nourishing’, or words to that effect; Found Proved

j. pulled Miss A’s labia apart and with your finger touched the inside of Miss A’s vagina without:

j.i. Miss A’s consent; Found Proved
j.ii. informing Miss A what you were about to do;

80. The Tribunal has found Dr Alidoost acted in a manipulative manner towards Miss A during his ‘healing treatment’. He exploited her psychological vulnerability by telling her he could see that she would have a baby in eight months and this baby girl would look like her partner. At this point Miss A had been trying to conceive for over 13 years and had sought alternative treatments for her fertility. She desperately desired a child. Also during the ‘treatment’, in what seemed like an effort to legitimise his actions, Dr Alidoost would ask, what Miss A considered to be, appropriate questions and then interspersed the conversation with highly inappropriate questions of a sexual nature.'

Interestingly, searching using only the doctor's first name and surname name yielded no results. His GMC number was needed - 6138510:

Click 'Doctor's history' then under 'Hearings' click 'view details' to download the MPT decision.

https://www.gmc-uk.org/registration-and-...

J Roberts left an annotation ()

An example showing that sexually motivated conduct may mean only a temporary suspension:

Dr Athisayanathan ELANGOVAN 4374219

Summary of outcome - Suspension revoked

'6. In relation to Nurse A, Dr Elangovan admitted that, on a date in 2015, he put his arms around Nurse A’s waist and took hold of her chin, as if to kiss her. He admitted that his actions were without Nurse A’s consent and that they were sexually motivated. In relation to Support Worker B, Dr Elangovan admitted that, in 2017, he had made a number of inappropriate comments to her. Dr Elangovan also admitted that, in November 2017, he asked Support Worker B to give him a hug, placed his face on her chest and placed his hands on her back and bottom. Further, he admitted that his actions were without Support Worker B’s consent and that they were sexually motivated.'

https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod...

J Roberts left an annotation ()

An example of a doctor having his restoration application refused (he can try again in a year's time).

Dr Adil SHAREEF GMC ref. 4750983

'2. On 2 July 2010, the Crown Court at Guildford found Dr Shareef guilty of the following:

a.indecently assaulting Patient A, a female person, between 1 January 2003 and 13 December 2003, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956;

b.sexually assaulting Patient B, a female person, between 1 May 2004 and 31 May 2004, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;

c.sexually assaulting Mrs Eon 15 August 2008, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;

d.sexually assaulting Patient C, a female person, on 9 September 2008, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and

e.sexually assaulting Patient D, a female person, between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

3. Dr Shareef was sentenced to a total term of 18 months’ imprisonment. In addition, by virtue of his convictions and the sentences imposed he was made subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 10 years. Dr Shareef did attempt to appeal against both his conviction and sentence, but the Court of Appeal refused the application. Dr Shareef served nine months of his 18 month sentence and was released on licence in April 2011.'

https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod...