Doctor rapped for his lack of insight
Dr Ammar Haydar, who last worked part-time in occupational health at the hospital, has served a suspension after a 2010 consultation with a patient was found to be seriously inadequate.
And the medic was also found to have not returned a £35,000 salary overpayment, by a Manchester NHS trust, then ignored follow-up letters from the organisation regarding the matter.
He was also said to have requested the notes of another patient without there being any clinical need.
His practice ban was later replaced with conditions on his future employment.
But Dr Haydar, who also previously worked for the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust in Greater Manchester, said conditions imposed on his registration in 2015, including informing employers about his recent past, had made it impossible for him to secure employment.
He told a Medical Practitioners Tribunal review hearing that he had applied for a number of jobs but had only been shortlisted for two posts in that time.
Dr Haydar said that there was a “zero chance of reoccurrence” of his behaviour from 2010, which he insisted was an isolated incident following more than 30 years of unblemished conduct.
The doctor produced evidence that he had undertaken a number of remedial courses, including seminars with the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health and the British HIV Association through 2015 and 2016.
He accepted that he had made some criticisms of MPTS procedures following a 2016 review hearing, which extended the length of his practising conditions.
But Dr Haydar, who said he had not appealed last year’s decision due to cost considerations, believed he was within his rights to question the review system.
Announcing that his fitness to practice was still impaired, review panel chairman Paul Moulder said they had carefully considered a series of letters sent by Dr Haydar ato the MPTS following the 2016 hearing.
Mr Moulder added: “The tribunal accepts that you do have a right to question the hearing process.
“However, having paid careful attention to the contents of that correspondence, and in particular your letter of 26 August 2016, it was satisfied that you do not simply criticise the process therein but did not accept the foundations of the tribunal’s judgement.
“For example, in that correspondence you make reference to there having been ‘no evidence of impairment’ before the 2016 tribunal.”
The panel, which met in Manchester, adjourned a decision on any further action, regarding Dr Haydar’s registration, until September 29.