A CONSULTANT who was suspended after claiming cutbacks would affect patients’ health and safety has won his case against hospital chiefs.

Ramon Niekrash, 50, had written a series of letters from 2005 onwards complaining about cuts at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich, including the closure of a urology ward and reductions in specialist nurses.

But the consultant urologist said he had been accused of misconduct and labelled a “troublemaker” after repeatedly raising the issues.

And he said he had been bullied and harassed as a result, eventually leading to a 10-week suspension in April 2008.

Mr Niekrash took the South London Healthcare Trust to a tribunal, claiming his exclusion was on the grounds of whistleblowing.

In a unanimous 50-page ruling by the tribunal panel Judge Christopher Baron found in Mr Niekrash’s favour, saying the consultant had only been disciplined after making disclosures to managers in the public interest.

Judge Baron said the consultant’s treatment had led to a loss of income and injury to his feelings and health.

He said: "We have no doubt that the exclusion of a consultant, being a rare occurrence, must have an adverse impact on the claimant’s reputation."

Mr Niekrash said: “This impacted upon my long-standing reputation, my patients, my colleagues, my private practice, earnings and health."

His lawyers claimed letters written by trust managers were “clearly defamatory” and derogatory.

Employment lawyer Arpita Dutt, from Russell Jones & Walker, who represented the urologist, said afterwards: “The decision to exclude Mr Niekrash was exceptional and unjustified.

“It is hoped that employers will not resort to similar silencing measures against employees who raise legitimate public interest concerns.”

A spokesman for the trust said: "We are considering this judgment very carefully. These incidents covered in this case took place prior to the establishment of South London Healthcare NHS Trust.

“There are nearly always lessons to be learned from cases like this, and as soon as we have carefully considered the judgment, we will respond in full."

The tribunal will hold a separate remedy hearing at a date to be set to decide on compensation.