NHS nurse wins huge payout after patient claimed she was pregnant with his child

An NHS nurse accused of carrying a patient's baby has been awarded a significant payout after she was wrongly suspended for over two years.

A probe was launched after a man, known only as Patient X, claimed that he was in an 'inappropriate relationship' with Jessica Thorpe just months after she started working on Ward Z.

He alleged that she was 'pregnant with his child' in April 2020 while under her care at a secure facility for men with mental health disorders after being referred from a prison facility, the BBC reported.

Three days later, Thorpe was suspended from her role with the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, which she had began in 2016.

An employment tribunal in Newcastle heard how the nurse was informed that a disciplinary investigation would take place the following month, however, it did not happen until July 2021.

Employment Judge Simon Loy said a 'series of extensions' were applied to her suspension during this period, despite Patient X passing away in December 2020.

While unable to work, Thorpe said she was only receiving basic pay and was losing around £1,000 a month. The Trust later made some back payments.

She had launched a social media page sharing food snaps under the name 'Slice of Jess' in September 2020 as a 'hobby' - and went on to earn nearly £20,000 a year doing so.

Thorpe also started posting content on YouTube, which was monetised. According to tax returns seen by the tribunal, the nurse's income from Google shot up from £4,211.00 in 2021 to £19,222 in 2023.

Thorpe was eventually invited to return to her role in October 2022, but instead resigned in protest a month later - alleging that the Trust had failed to intervene amid staff 'gossip' about the 'alleged relationship'.

However, her employer argued that the 'real reason' for her departure was that she wanted to 'pursue her career as a social media influencer' - but the employment tribunal sided with Thorpe.

Although Judge Loy acknowledged the timing of her resignation was an 'oddity', he said that if Thorpe wanted to use her downtime to 'explore the potential' of influencing to earn cash, then 'so be it'.

She has now been awarded £24,118 after winning her claim for unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.

Thorpe shared an emotional video on Instagram celebrating her win, alongside the caption: "5 years to the day that I got sent home suspended. Quite poetic. My shoulders have dropped. My jaw has unclenched. Finally I’m free."

The tribunal heard that there might have been a 'blurring of boundaries' as Patient X had been 'responding well' to the nurse.

A judge previously ruled that he would not be addressing or making factual findings about the allegations posed against Thorpe.

But the claim that she had behaved inappropriately was not upheld by the Trust because of a lack of 'conclusive evidence', resulting in her prolonged suspension being lifted in July 2021.

However, Thorpe did not receive written correspondence to confirm the outcome and instead got a letter on 30 July stating the panel couldn't reach a conclusion due to 'other investigations which are active and involve other agencies'.

This probe was into the death of Patient X, with police being among those who were investigating.

The tribunal judge said: "It was common ground that the claimant never received any letter confirming the outcome of the disciplinary hearing 2021 before her resignation."

Judge Loy said there had been an 'enormous period' of suspension for Thorpe, but the 'real issue' stemmed from the Trust's decision to stop her returning to work in wake of the disciplinary hearing.

He explained he had 'considerable sympathy' for the Trust's stance, as in 'other contexts', the issue could have been 'remedied'.

"However, the tribunal must apply the applicable legal principles." he said, adding: "There is no restriction on the innocent party to a repudiatory breach from seeking to earn money from other activities that are not expressly or impliedly prohibited by the contract of employment."