Cambridge Professor Cleared of Dishonesty in £1M NHS Case

A professor and orthopaedic surgeon from Cambridge University has been exonerated of dishonesty allegations in a case concerning a £1 million compensation claim against the National Health Service (NHS). Dr Mohamed Atef Hakmi, aged 64, suffered a stroke in November 2016 that resulted in lasting disabilities, which forced him to stop his surgical practice.

Following his stroke, Dr Hakmi filed a lawsuit against the NHS at London’s High Court, claiming that medical errors led to his brain damage and physical impairments. His allegations centered on the assertion that he had been denied essential treatment, which he believed could have improved his condition.

The NHS countered these claims with accusations of “fundamental dishonesty,” citing Dr Hakmi’s low score of 84 on a pre-trial IQ test. This score placed him significantly below the UK average and in some classifications, within the “borderline mental disability” range, despite his ongoing teaching role at the university. The health service suggested that Dr Hakmi had deliberately exaggerated his disabilities to bolster his compensation claim.

High Court Ruling

In a recent ruling, Judge David Pittaway determined that Dr Hakmi did not intentionally underperform on the tests. The judge stated that the professor’s poor results were likely due to exhaustion and personal stress, rather than any attempt to deceive. “I do not consider that Mr Hakmi was performing badly on the tests … to exaggerate deliberately the extent of his impairment,” Judge Pittaway said.

The judge highlighted that if Dr Hakmi had indeed been attempting to underperform, it would contradict the efforts he has made in rehabilitating himself post-stroke. Despite clearing him of dishonesty, the court ruled against Dr Hakmi’s compensation claim, concluding that even had he received the treatment he sought, his recovery would not have significantly improved.

The court learned that Dr Hakmi had previously made a good recovery from an earlier stroke in September 2016, after receiving clot-busting thrombolysis treatment. However, during the second stroke, he experienced a series of delays that prevented him from receiving the same treatment. He had reported his symptoms while at work and contacted the hospital, yet was assessed and told that he was not having a stroke.

Dr Hakmi’s barrister, Robert Kellar KC, argued that the cumulative negligence of NHS staff led to a failure in providing timely treatment, which could have mitigated his injuries. The court heard that Dr Hakmi now faces challenges including a limp, reduced sensation in his extremities, and cognitive impairments affecting concentration and memory.

Impact of the Case

The NHS denied any liability, maintaining that the severity of Dr Hakmi’s second stroke did not warrant thrombolysis treatment and that even if administered, the outcome would likely have been the same. During the proceedings, NHS barrister John de Bono KC claimed that Dr Hakmi’s test results raised serious concerns about the validity of his claims.

Despite the judge’s acknowledgment of Dr Hakmi’s honesty, he ultimately sided with the NHS regarding the negligence claim. He stated that Dr Hakmi’s symptoms did not meet the criteria for thrombolysis treatment within the necessary time frame. Additionally, he noted that the protocols followed by Lister Hospital and the remote stroke treatment system were in place to ensure patient safety.

In conclusion, while Dr Hakmi was cleared of dishonesty, he was denied the compensation he sought. The judge ordered the NHS to cover 15 percent of Dr Hakmi’s legal costs, marking a complex outcome for a case that highlights the challenges faced by medical professionals following severe health crises. The claim involved not just a legal battle but also underscored the ongoing impact of health system navigation and treatment efficacy in the aftermath of significant medical events.