Jersey tribunal backs dismissal after rheumatology service collapse
A Jersey tribunal has thrown out Dr Michael Richardson’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed from Health and Care Jersey after a damaging review of the island’s rheumatology service. The panel accepted that the health service had valid grounds to end his employment, even while acknowledging that the dismissal process itself was not handled properly from start to finish.
The case is more than an employment dispute. It sits at the intersection of patient safety, clinical governance, and the collapse of confidence that can follow when a specialty service is judged to be operating far below accepted standards.
Richardson had argued that his suspension in January 2022 was unjustified, that he had been the target of a “witch hunt,” and that the Royal College of Physicians review of the rheumatology department was fundamentally flawed. The tribunal rejected those arguments and found that his return to practice would have damaged public trust in Health and Care Jersey and, by extension, the Government of Jersey.
A service found “well below” acceptable standards
Rheumatology spans more than 100 disorders, including autoimmune disease and degenerative joint conditions. The RCP review of Jersey’s service followed the deaths of 182 patients in the department since 2019 and concluded the entire service was “well below” what would be considered acceptable. It also identified cases in which patients were wrongly prescribed specialist drugs.
Those findings frame the wider clinical context. Rheumatology patients often depend on careful longitudinal assessment, laboratory monitoring, imaging review, and cautious use of immunosuppressive therapy. When any one of those steps breaks down, the consequences can be severe: missed inflammatory disease, medication toxicity, delayed diagnosis, or exposure to drugs that are not appropriate for the underlying condition.
The tribunal heard that the concerns leading to Richardson’s suspension began with a junior doctor’s observations after a ward round on 17 January 2022. The junior doctor judged the round to be poor, with inadequate review of patients, clinical notes, blood test results and imaging. Three days later the junior doctor resigned, and Richardson was suspended with immediate effect at 17:30 on 20 January 2022.
One sentence captures the clinical breakdown plainly: the ward round failed at the basics.
In a specialty where treatment decisions hinge on subtle changes in symptoms, inflammatory markers, and radiological detail, that kind of failure is not administrative trivia. It can change the trajectory of care for patients whose disease is already complex and vulnerable to misclassification.
Suspension, review, and eventual dismissal
Richardson said he was not initially given reasons for the suspension. A letter sent the following day by then medical director Patrick Armstrong MBE stated the allegations were serious enough to justify immediate suspension in order to protect patients and staff. Armstrong also wrote that the allegations included “wilful, careless, inappropriate, and unethical behaviour” likely to compromise standards of care, along with a failure to support junior doctors properly.
Three years later, after the review into the department, Richardson was dismissed in June 2025. He filed claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination and disability discrimination against the States Employment Board, and sought both a return to work and compensation.
Current medical director Simon West set out the reasons for dismissal in a letter dated 13 June 2025. He wrote that Richardson’s return to practice would seriously undermine the reputation of Health and Care Jersey and, by extension, the Government of Jersey, causing a loss of public confidence that could not be tolerated. He also said the relationship between the health service and Richardson had irretrievably broken down.
The tribunal panel, chaired by Dr Elena Moran with Lisa Thorpe and Robert Douglas, said there was ample evidence to support that position. It found that a proper dismissal process had not been followed, but still ruled the decision fair and reasonable in substance.
Public confidence carried as much weight as competence
The judgment put unusual emphasis on reputation and trust. The principal reason for dismissal, it said, was the effect on public confidence and reputational damage if Richardson returned to work, regardless of his competence.
That is an important distinction in a healthcare system already under scrutiny. When a specialty service is found to have systemic weaknesses, the question is not only whether one doctor can still practice. It is also whether patients, staff, and the public can trust the institution to correct itself.
The tribunal also rejected Richardson’s age and disability discrimination claims. It found he did not prove that a lengthy suspension disadvantaged older employees, and he had not established a protected characteristic disability because the only impairment he pleaded was stress.
While the panel described Richardson as a credible witness, it said his evidence should be treated with considerable caution. It found he had a tendency to exaggerate matters that reflected well on him and minimize matters that did not, and said he appeared unable to reflect on how the rheumatology service’s poor treatment affected patients and families.
A ruling that leaves the care failures in plain view
The tribunal’s decision closes one employment dispute, but it does not erase the deeper clinical failure that triggered it. The RCP review had already described the rheumatology service as far below acceptable standards, and that finding remains central to understanding why the health service took such a hard line.
The unanswered issue is not whether the dismissal was legally defensible. It is how a specialty service reached a point where review, governance, and patient safety had to be rebuilt after such serious concerns.