Derby doctor suspended due to 'serious failings' that put patients 'at risk of harm'

A recent hearing has led to a Derby doctor being suspended for 12 months after a tribunal found evidence of "serious misconduct". Dr. Jan Mozny was practising as a locum consultant specialising in medical oncology at the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust at the time of the events that were subject to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MTP) in 2023.

The allegations that led to that hearing related to consultations during which Dr Mozny, who worked in Derby, failed to dictate correspondence in a timely manner for six patients. In relation to one of those patients, it was also alleged that at the consultation, Dr Mozny prescribed chemotherapy and failed to dictate correspondence in a timely manner.

In relation to another of those patients, it was alleged that, on March 10 and March 27, 2020, Dr Mozny had a consultation where he recommended carboplatin, pemetrexed and pembrolizumab therapy when it was not licensed for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung. In relation to another of those patients, it was alleged that, on March 10, 2020, Dr Mozny failed to document his clinical encounter with the patient and failed to inform them of the results of their computed tomography (CT) scan.

The concerns were initially raised with the General Medical Council (GMC) on September 22 that same year. The 2023 tribunal found the allegation proved in its entirety.

It found that Dr Mozny had breached several paragraphs of Good Medical Practice and was of the view that his failures were serious and had potentially put patients at risk of harm. The tribunal identified that Dr Mozny’s actions meant that the clinical staff undertaking the treatment of the patients had no background information and were disadvantaged when delivering cancer treatment without the basic information required.

The tribunal recognised that the information within the correspondence was important for the patients’ care in order for the clinical staff to make proper assessments and monitor side effects. It was also of the view that, in relation to one patient, Dr Mozny’s actions were serious as he recommended the wrong course of treatment, meaning he had put that patient at potential risk of harm.

It concurred with an expert opinion that Dr Mozny’s overall care of the six patients was seriously below the standard expected of a competent Consultant in Medical Oncology. The tribunal therefore found that Dr Mozny’s actions in relation the patients amounted to serious misconduct.

It also considered that, in relation to the allegation that Dr Mozny had failed to inform one patient of the results of their CT scan, this was not as serious compared to the other allegations against Dr Mozny and constituted as misconduct, but not serious misconduct. The tribunal was satisfied that a period of suspension would mark the seriousness of Dr Mozny’s misconduct and send a signal to the doctor, the profession and the public about the standards of conduct expected and how those standards would be upheld.

It determined that a period of suspension would maintain public confidence in the profession and would protect patients. Dr Mozny’s case was further reviewed by an MPT in January this year.

The 2024 tribunal noted that Dr Mozny did not engage with the previous hearing and he had not engaged with the GMC since then, nor had he provided any evidence of insight or remediation or of how he had kept his medical knowledge and skills up to date. Dr Mozny did attend the January hearing and confirmed that he did not wish to seek an adjournment but preferred for the hearing to go ahead.

He indicated that he did not have any further evidence and that he would be applying for voluntary erasure. It considered that there was no evidence before it to suggest that Dr Mozny’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired.

It therefore determined that his fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of misconduct. An email from Dr Mozny to the GMC, sent in October, said: "I am working just now on my voluntary withdrawal from GMC register. I will not take part in any further hearings. I am [redacted] and I don’t have any thoughts about my further work (especially abroad) [redacted]. Thank you for your understanding."

On behalf of the GMC, Ms Safeena Rashid submitted that Dr Mozny’s fitness to practise remains impaired. She reminded the Tribunal that it is for Dr Mozny to satisfy the Tribunal that he is fit to practise, however, no evidence of remediation was received.

A tribunal in January imposed a nine-month period of suspension on Dr Mozny's registration to allow him to either proceed with his application for voluntary erasure or engage in the regulatory process and provide evidence of his remediation. A determination in October imposed a further period of suspension for 12 months to allow sufficient time for Dr Mozny to either proceed with his application for voluntary erasure or to engage in the regulatory process and gather relevant evidence to submit at a future view hearing.

To date, there has also been no attempt at a voluntary erasure application. Ms Rashid submitted that a lot of time has passed, and Dr Mozny has had ample time to address issues in relation to his misconduct, even to submit a voluntary erasure application if that is the route that he wanted to go down. Ms Rashid submitted that Dr Mozny has failed to satisfy the Tribunal that he is fit to return to unrestricted practice.

He remains impaired as he continues to be a danger to the public if he is left to practise unrestricted, the tribunal found. The Trust said Dr Mozny worked at UHDB as a locum, whose services were procured via an approved locum agency, for four months, meaning he was not employed by the Trust.

The Trust proactively referred him to the GMC following concerns being raised and Dr Mozny had no further contact with Trust patients following the referral to the GMC.