Cambridge Professor Exonerated in £1M IQ Test Fraud Case
The Legal Battle of a Cambridge Professor and the NHS
A University of Cambridge professor, Dr Mohamed Atef Hakmi, has been cleared of deliberately flunking an IQ and memory test after suffering a stroke. This incident occurred as he attempted to claim £1 million in compensation from the NHS for alleged negligence. The case has sparked significant debate about medical malpractice, legal procedures, and the complexities of stroke treatment.
Dr Hakmi, a renowned orthopaedic surgeon and lecturer at the Cambridge School of Medicine, suffered a stroke at home in November 2016. The event left him with permanent disabilities, forcing him to abandon his surgical career. He claimed that the failure to promptly diagnose his stroke resulted in brain damage and physical impairments. His legal battle against the NHS was based on this assertion.
The professor sought £1 million in damages through London's High Court. In response, the NHS accused him of 'fundamental dishonesty' due to a 'very bad' pre-trial IQ test score, which placed him in the bracket of 'borderline mental disability.' The health service alleged that Dr Hakmi exaggerated his disability to bolster his claim. However, after a thorough examination by a High Court judge, it was determined that Dr Hakmi had not intentionally performed poorly in the tests.
Judge David Pittaway concluded that the poor test results were likely due to Dr Hakmi's exhaustion and personal family issues. He stated that there was no evidence of deliberate underperformance to exaggerate his impairment. The judge emphasized that if Dr Hakmi had intended to mislead, it would contradict his efforts to rehabilitate himself post-stroke.
Despite being cleared of dishonesty, Dr Hakmi’s £1 million compensation bid was rejected. The judge found that even with timely treatment, Dr Hakmi’s recovery would not have significantly improved. This ruling was based on the timing of the stroke and the effectiveness of thrombolysis treatment.
The Stroke and Its Aftermath
Dr Hakmi first experienced a stroke in September 2016 but received clot-busting thrombolysis treatment, allowing him to recover quickly. However, a second stroke in November 2016 led to more severe consequences. He noticed symptoms while working late at night and contacted Lister Hospital, informing them of his condition. Despite this, he was not given the same treatment as before.
The hospital staff, after examining him and consulting a stroke specialist via phone, decided he was not having a stroke. They suggested it could be a migraine or epilepsy. It wasn’t until 9am that day that the stroke was diagnosed, making thrombolysis treatment ineffective.
Dr Hakmi accused the NHS of cumulative failings that prevented him from receiving necessary treatment. His barrister argued that the worst of his injuries could have been avoided with proper care. The professor now faces permanent disabilities, including a limp, reduced sensation in his fingers and toes, and fatigue in his right arm and hand. He also suffers from short-term memory impairment, concentration issues, and executive deficits.
The NHS's Defense
The NHS denied liability, arguing that Dr Hakmi’s stroke was not serious enough for thrombolysis and that the treatment would have been too late. They also highlighted the risks associated with thrombolysis, such as brain haemorrhage and death. Even if he had received the treatment, they claimed, the outcome would likely have remained the same.
Additionally, the NHS raised concerns about Dr Hakmi’s performance in pre-trial tests. His IQ score of 84, placing him below 86% of the population, and low memory test scores were cited as evidence of dishonesty. Neuropsychologists noted surprising results, raising questions about his effort during testing.
Dr Hakmi denied any intention to mislead the court, stating that the tests were exhausting. He acknowledged his memory problems and slow processing speed, emphasizing his efforts to mitigate his losses.
The Court's Ruling
Judge Pittaway ruled that the allegation of fundamental dishonesty was unfounded. He observed Dr Hakmi during cross-examination and found no evidence of intent to mislead. The judge noted Dr Hakmi’s pride and the seriousness of the allegations against him. He also considered statements from colleagues attesting to Dr Hakmi’s honesty and efforts to manage his disabilities.
Despite clearing Dr Hakmi of dishonesty, the judge ruled in favor of the NHS on the negligence claim. He concluded that the thrombolysis treatment would not have altered the outcome of Dr Hakmi’s recovery. The judge dismissed the compensation claim but ordered the NHS to cover 15% of the surgeon’s legal costs.
