Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — review hearing
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 7 July 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Simon Moran, doctor (General Medical Council 3115204).
Decision date: 29 May 2026 · Hearing started 29 May 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Simon Moran's fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of misconduct. His case concerned dishonesty: before retiring he had used a colleague's prescription pads to prescribe medication to himself and a close relative. At this second review the tribunal noted he had not engaged with the regulator or shown any insight or remediation across two previous hearings, and decided to erase his name from the medical register.
Charges
The underlying misconduct, found proved by the 2024 Medical Practitioners Tribunal, was that before his retirement Dr Moran, a GP, had taken one or more prescription pads personalised to a colleague, Dr A, and used them to inappropriately prescribe medications to himself and a person with whom he had a close personal relationship, presenting the prescriptions to a pharmacy to be dispensed. The 2024 Tribunal found he used Dr A's pad so that the shared surname would not arouse suspicion, that he acted in a premeditated manner to deceive, and that this dishonesty amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Findings
At this second review the Tribunal found that Dr Moran's fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of misconduct. It noted he had not engaged with the GMC or the regulatory process across two previous hearings and had provided no evidence of insight, remediation, or that he had kept his medical knowledge and skills up to date. Having been out of clinical practice for nearly six years, the Tribunal found the risk had increased to engage all three parts of public protection and fell at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.