Doctor Alistair Dorward Respiratory Specialist, Royal Alexandra Hospital/Paisley.

Complaint: I had to visit this doctor as he was representing the Insurance company for my former employer. I could not believe a doctor could be so devious.

I was making a claim against my former employer as I had to leave work due to respiratory health problems connected to being exposed to dangerous paint dusts for many years.

Dr Dorward was chosen by the solicitors acting on behalf of the firm to look for evidence that would show the illness was not connected to exposure at work.

Dr Dorward seemed to have difficulty producing a strong report against the cause of my illness using respiratory evidence so added psychological evidence to his report insinuating I was imagining my illness.

A scope test a few months later showed inflammation in the right and left bronchi with contact bleeding. This you would have thought would have been enough to prove Dr Dorward should refrain from trying his hand at psychology and stick to what he is qualified to do.

Dr Dorward however seemed keen to impress the people hiring him so responded to the scope test with the statement: (Inflammation in the airways on bronchoscopy is a very unreliable finding, it is virtually impossible to tell if there is any. I would ignore whats written completely and it bears no relevence to your condition). The General Medical Council have refused to state whether or not this statement is accurate or false.

The NHS doctors on my side seemed reluctant to go up against Dr Dorward in court, one even changed his original report to almost the exact same as Dr Dorward's after he had seen his report. The solicitor representing me stated he would not complain about Dr Dorward's report as he used him whenever he could. Stating, if you want to win cases, that is the doctor you want.

In England there is an expert witness procedure that does not allow doctors to give evidence they are not qualified to give. Also, guidelines in England advise one joint expert witness should be used whenever possible.

The present system in Scotland obviously encourages doctors to produce reports they think the people hiring them are looking for. If their reports did not help win cases, they would probably not be used by that firm again.

Very few of these cases seem ever to reach court in Scotland as doctors can produce such seemingly strong reports against the claimant, this leading to the claimants doctor being reluctant to get involved in the court case.

It is highly unlikely an ordinary NHS specialist is going to go into a court and accuse more qualified doctors of giving misleading medical evidence. This was what my solicitor stated is a common problem.

Dr Dorward's report against me contained other seemingly deliberate errors such as he refused to state clearly if it was safe for me to return to work in that type of industry. He stated there was no reason why I should not carry out work. Along with the psychological evidence and comments on scope tests, they seem to show Dr Dorward will go to extraordinary lengths to produce strong reports for the people hiring him.

How many other cases has he created similar reports for.

I personally believe this doctor has used psychological evidence to help win many cases, and, any case he has helped to win using such evidence should be reopened with an impartial specialist giving the expert advice on the illness in question.

The General Medical Council have made an investigation into this case. So far, they have refused to say if they took any action against the doctor in question over his giving psychological evidence, his comments about scope tests and failing to state clearly if it was safe for me to return to work in that type of industry.

The GMC have only stated they passed the investigation on to Dr Dorward's employers at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. Seemingly so they could look into if he has used this type of evidence in other cases.

The GMC later stated: (Dr Dorward's employers have confirmed that they do not have any wider concerns about him).

I believe it is highly unlikely any hospital will expose one of their doctors of being involved in giving misleading evidence in court cases. That would attract a huge amount of unwelcome publicity for that hospital.

I asked the GMC if they were going to allow Dr Dorward to continue giving psychological evidence in court cases as he is not qualified to give such evidence and expert witness guidelines in England clearly state this is unacceptable. The GMC have refused to state if they have allowed Dr Dorward to continue giving psychological evidence in court cases.

I have now applied for the documentation of the GMC enquiry through the Freedom of Information Act to find out what the enquiry actually found and if any action was taken.

19. 10. 2007, Julian Graves of the GMC confirmed they are not going to hand over copies of any documents concerning the findings of their enquiry into Dr Dorward.

I have made the Scottish Parliament aware of what happened to my case and that solicitors know there is a problem with the present system. I have asked the Scottish Parliament to look into adopting the Expert Witness Guidelines used in England.

October 23rd 2008, received documents from the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) signed by Gemma Garvey, basically stating they have made a decision that the GMC were not breaking the law by withholding all the documents concerning my complaint against Dr Dorward. This looks to me like those documents could contain evidence that would prove Dr Dorward has been involved in corruption and the GMC, and his employers, are aware of that fact. I will need to look into this further to see if the ICO is also involved in corruption or not.