A HIGH COURT judge has dismissed a doctor's judicial review claim against the Medical Board’s (MBTT) policy for specialist registration.
Justice Joan Charles dismissed Dr Sharaz Mohammed’s challenge, ruling that the MBTT acted lawfully when it refused to process his Certificate of Independent Specialist Practice (CISP) application.
Mohammed challenged the board’s refusal to recognise his post-graduate qualifications for specialist certification.
He has been the Registrar at the Port of Spain General Hospital since May 2017 and said the board’s decision to suspend the application for specialist registration under an alternative pathway denied him the opportunity to apply for a CISP although he has the qualifications.
Mohammed’s lawsuit said he was told of a decision by the board’s council to suspend the application for specialist registration under the alternative (Pathway B), until further notice.
“This suspension of Pathway B is also unfair such as to constitutes an abuse of power since the applicant is currently engaging in his examinations for admission as a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. “Pathway B therefore constituted an express representation, that the respondent intends to resile from in breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation.”
Mohammed’s lawsuit said in 2015, doctors were told they should complete the MRCS (Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons) qualification and submit an application for the registration of an additional qualification for their specialist practice certificate.
The MRCS is an intercollegiate exam. Mohammed received his MRCS qualification and another in urology in 2019.
His lawsuit said the MBTT’s council had the power to make rules or regulations “for determining whether a person is a specialist” under the Medical Board Act. However, it maintained the regulations must be approved by the general membership, not the council, and then approved by the minister before it comes into force.
Mohammed’s lawsuit said the regulations set out the policy for specialist recognition and there was no evidence the policy had changed, downgrading the MRCS qualification.
He said the policy change breached his right to equality of treatment since it unfairly prevented him from registering as a specialist although previous candidates were granted specialist recognition.
In deciding the case, Justice Charles ruled that Mohammed did not provide sufficient evidence that he was similarly circumstanced to those doctors. She found that Mohammed had not yet met the three-year post-qualification requirement necessary under the 2005 Medical Board policy, and by the time he was eligible, the 2017 policy guidelines had replaced the old system.
“He could not have applied for a CISP until completion of three years supervised practice after obtaining the MRCS.
“There was therefore no evidence of a decision by the defendant refusing the claimant’s application for a CISP since none was made; in the circumstances, there is no decision to be reviewed.”
Charles also upheld
