Another poster on one of the previous threads pointed out that potentially there was a misunderstanding that DU was claiming SP refusing to communicate with them about two patients risked patient care. However, ED? thought it was SP would refuse to treat a transgender patient was the risk to patient care.
So far DU has not provided sufficient evidence to enable the alleged incidents to identify the patients, and therefore witnesses bar the one already acknowledged. No one has given evidence of SP not being prepared to treat transgender patients, her only issue is with a TW in the nurses female CR.
If the hospital have more evidence that they haven’t disclosed I suspect the judge would not be happy.
I assume this is Fife hospital punishing SP for not settling and dragging them through the ET. This could backfire spectacularly.