Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — restoration hearing
Restoration to the register refused
The regulator’s term: restoration refused
What does “restoration to the register refused” mean?
A practitioner who had been struck off applied for restoration to the register and the application was refused. The original strike-off remains in effect.
Concerning Mohamed El Muiad, doctor (General Medical Council 4480318).
Decision date: 17 February 2026 · Hearing started 16 February 2026 and ended 17 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal refused Dr Mohamed El Muiad's application to be restored to the Medical Register. He was erased in 2012 after a tribunal found that, between August 2008 and July 2009, he had dishonestly worked at more than one NHS hospital at the same time and claimed payment for overlapping shifts, having previously been suspended for six months in 2005 for similar dishonest claims. The tribunal accepted his ethics study and remorse but found his insight, remediation and evidence of fitness to practise were not sufficient and that restoration would undermine public confidence in the profession.
Charges
This was Dr El Muiad's first application for restoration following his erasure from the Medical Register in 2012. The 2012 Tribunal had found proved that, between August 2008 and July 2009, while working through locum agencies as a Consultant or Specialty Registrar at Pontefract General Infirmary, Dewsbury District Hospital, Royal Blackburn Hospital and Salford Royal Hospital, Dr El Muiad committed to working at more than one hospital at the same time on at least 10 occasions, did not inform the relevant trusts or booking agencies of the conflict, submitted 22 duplicate timesheets, received 10 duplicate payments and did not inform the trusts or agencies of the duplication. His conduct was found to be dishonest, deliberate and persistent. The 2012 Tribunal also took into account a 2005 Professional Conduct Committee finding of dishonest claims for travel expenses and locum duties during study leave, for which he had been suspended for six months and accepted a police caution.
Findings
The Tribunal accepted that Dr El Muiad had completed some continuing medical education, ethics courses and reading on Good Medical Practice and that he expressed acceptance of his past dishonesty. However, it found that his reflective documents largely consisted of general assertions without detailed analysis, that his application for restoration mischaracterised the 2005 finding as relating to overstayed leave and incorrectly described the 2012 outcome as suspension rather than erasure, that several certificates evidenced enrolment rather than completion, and that referees had largely not been told of his erasure. Given the pattern of repeated dishonesty across two regulatory cycles and the seriousness of the original misconduct, the Tribunal concluded he had not discharged the burden of showing he is fit to return to unrestricted practice and that restoration would undermine public confidence and professional standards. The application for restoration was refused.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.