Physiotherapist struck off after fraudulent personal injury claim from 13-year old minor

No comments

Further investigations revealed that the physiotherapist had been suspended from the HCPC register following a conviction

A physiotherapist has been struck off the HCPC (Healthcare and Care Professions Council’s) register following a final hearing.

The investigation originally arose when a personal injury claim from a 13-year old minor in a single vehicle incident was referred to Keoghs and Mulsanne Insurance

The hearing deemed the physiologist’s treatment was not clinically appropriate as there was a risk that the diagnosis of the claimant was incorrect because of the limited assessment without face-to-face contact.

The Registrar was then directed to strike Adeyinka Adeshina from the register, and he failed to attend the final hearing.

Meanwhile further investigations revealed that the physiotherapist had previously been suspended from the HCPC register following a conviction for possessing counterfeit currency and making off without payment. His suspension between November 2015 and March 2016 overlapped with two of the treatment sessions in question.

Not to be taken lightly

Adeshina, director of Physique Rehab Ltd, had delivered elevens session of physiotherapy to the claimant over the phone.

He spoke with the claimant’s mother via a non-professional interpreter asking her to carry out the treatment, but did not examine the claimant physically himself.

Healthcare-enabled fraud strategy lead for Keoghs, Matthew Ruck, said this was an important issue and urged insurers to ensure they fully validated all claims for rehabilitation.

“A medical professional being struck off is not to be taken lightly and this result is testament to the hard work by the teams at Mulsanne and Keoghs,” he said. “We continue to recommend that insurers undertake full validation of any claims for rehabilitation that they receive in order to confirm exactly what treatment, if any, has actually been undertaken and to ensure that the documents received in support are accurate and honest.”

Warning

Ruck added: “In the absence of specific expert evidence there will always be difficulty establishing whether a particular mode of treatment is clinically appropriate in a given case, however this decision provides a useful guide and hopefully will serve as a warning to those healthcare professionals who may be tempted to submit or support exaggerated, misleading or entirely false treatment claims.”

Meanwhile, the HCPTS Panel received evidence from a physiotherapist who said in respect of telephone-led treatment it may be acceptable for a physiotherapist to conduct up to a maximum of two physiotherapy sessions by telephone.

However, by the conclusion of the second session the physiotherapist would have to identify the need for physiotherapy treatment, which would require face-to-face contact or resolve without requiring physiotherapy intervention.

Other factors were considered when determining if remote treatment was appropriate.

This included the nature, extent and duration of the injuries and the geographical distance between the claimant and the physiotherapist.

Meanwhile Paul Twilley, claims director at Mulsanne Insurance Company Limited, said: “This case is an excellent outcome and a good demonstration of our robust Medical Care Fraud strategy in which we work in partnership with Keoghs to diligently investigate and defend any unmeritorious claims for rehabilitation.

“We shall continue to report any instances of malpractice and to take other appropriate enforcement steps to ensure that this sort of unacceptable behaviour is stopped in its tracks.”