Paramedic Lisa Cumisky struck off for after friend did her uni work

A PARAMEDIC has been struck off after it emerged a friend completed her training assignments while she was studying for her professional qualification.

Lisa Cumisky’s dishonesty was uncovered when her friend - a qualified paramedic ­â€" who she had fallen out with, came forward four years later to say she has completed a number of assignments for Cumisky while she was training to be a paramedic.

Cumisky was working as a technician for North West Ambulance Service before starting her paramedic course at Edge Hill University in September 2014.

The Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) found that she had no compunction in handing in six assignments which she knew would “significantly contribute to her ability to obtain a professional qualification as a paramedic” ­â€" lying by signing a declaration that it was all her own work, when “she knew it wasn’t”.

The Health and Care Professions tribunal service was told the two had met at work becoming ‘good friends’ and the paramedic ­â€" who herself was struck off in 2018 for dishonesty ­â€" referred to as Person 1, confided in Cumisky about a traumatic event.

Person 1 alleged that Cumisky took advantage of her “expecting that she write several, if not all of “ Cumisky’s assignments for her, fearing that she would disclose the confidential information she had share with her if she did not comply. And that “she would lose the friendship and support”.

It also emerged that the Cumisky did not respond when Person 1 asked her to act as a character witness at her own fitness to practice hearing in 2018 and that Cumisky ended the the friendship.

The panel said it Cumisky ­â€" who at the time of the hearing was employed as a driving instructor for North West Ambulance Service, having served as a paramedic ­â€"made no admissions in the face of overwhelming evidence and provided no explanation as to why she had acted in such a “blatantly dishonest way”.

Striking Cumisky off the register, HCPTS stated: “T, The registrant played an active and not a passive role in her dishonesty and has provided no evidence that she actually submitted any of her own work in her assignments. The registrant has demonstrated no insight, remorse or apology and there remains a risk of repetition.”

Share this post