Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Practising with restrictions — 2 years
The regulator’s term: conditions on practice
What does “practising with restrictions” mean?
Conditions of practice allow the practitioner to keep working but only subject to specific restrictions — for example, supervision, limits on certain procedures, or required reporting to the regulator.
Concerning Costantino Davide, doctor (General Medical Council 6100124).
Decision date: 14 April 2026 · Hearing started 30 March 2026 and ended 14 April 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Costantino Davide, a consultant plastic surgeon, failed to tell a patient before a 2022 facelift and eyelid surgery that her BMI was too high and that she should stop smoking three weeks before the procedure, and failed to keep adequate records of the reasons for surgery and his treatment plan. The tribunal found his fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct. It imposed conditions on his registration for 24 months, with a review hearing, and an immediate order.
Charges
On 12 February 2022, while practising as a Consultant Plastic Surgeon at Top Cosmetic Surgery UK Ltd, Dr Davide performed a bilateral blepharoplasty (upper and lower) and facelift on Patient A. The Tribunal found proved that he failed to communicate to her that her body mass index was too high and that she should stop smoking three weeks before the procedure, and that he failed adequately to record the reasons for the proposed procedure, the possible needs for pre-operative discussions and investigations, and a treatment plan. Allegations relating to consent, communication of infection risk and lung condition, and post-operative follow-up were either not proved or withdrawn.
Findings
The Tribunal found that Dr Davide's failures to communicate with Patient A about her BMI and smoking, and his lack of record keeping leading up to and during the day of the procedure, amounted to serious professional misconduct and a serious departure from Good Medical Practice. It assessed seriousness initially as falling at the lower end of the spectrum but slightly increased given evidence that Dr Davide was not taking the allegations seriously and tended to shift blame to patients. Insight was at best in its infancy and remediation limited; risk of repetition remained. The Tribunal concluded all three limbs of public protection were engaged and that Dr Davide's fitness to practise was impaired. The current and ongoing risk to public protection was assessed as medium, at the lower end of that range.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The Tribunal identified one feature increasing seriousness: an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for his behaviour, including evidence that Dr Davide was vague in oral evidence, blamed others (including saying patients 'lie' about smoking and seeking to blame the London Surgical Suite for lost notes), and blocked Patient A after she took legal advice.
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.