A doctor accused of dishonest representations about his medical experience during a job application has lost his erasure appeal.
The case of Abdulhamid v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 62 (Admin) involves Dr. Ahmed Kamel Abdulhamid’s appeal against the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal’s (MPT) decision to erase him from the medical register. The MPT’s decision was based on findings that the appellant doctor made dishonest representations about his medical experience in urology during a job application and interview. The appellant doctor did not attend the appeal hearing in person and was unrepresented.
The appellant doctor had applied for a remote hearing from Iraq, citing visa difficulties and travel expenses, but his applications were dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence. The court decided to proceed with the hearing in his absence, as he had been given notice and failed to attend or engage legal representation.
The MPT found that the appellant doctor had knowingly misled King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust by falsely stating his job titles and experience in urology. The MPT determined that his dishonesty posed a risk to patient safety and that he had shown no meaningful insight or remediation. Consequently, the MPT concluded that erasure from the medical register was necessary to uphold public interest and patient safety.
Mr Justice Saini noted that it was “…not clear what the Appellant’s grounds of appeal are”, continuing:
“In his brief Appellant’s Notice (not supported by a skeleton argument), he contends that he had sufficient training as a urologist albeit not in the UK, but it is unclear whether this is intended to go to the findings of fact, the findings of dishonesty, misconduct, impairment, or sanction. I note that he mentions the fact that the proceedings proceeded largely in his absence, but it is unclear whether he appeals against the decision to proceed without him. Finally, he seeks a substitute sanction other than an erasure on what can broadly be described as compassionate grounds.”
However, the court found no discernible error in the MPT’s decision, which was supported by evidence and consistent with legal standards. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the MPT’s decision to erase the appellant doctor from the medical register was upheld.
Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.
Restoration Courses
Courses suitable for any health and social care practitioner who is considering making an application for restoration back onto the register.
Insight & Remediation
Courses that are suitable for any healthcare practitioner who is facing an investigation or hearing at work or before their regulatory body.
Probity, Ethics & Professionalism
Courses designed for those facing a complaint involving in part or in whole honesty, integrity and /or professionalism.
Recent Comments