Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — review hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Mili Shah, doctor (General Medical Council 6075526).
Decision date: 25 July 2025 · Hearing started 25 July 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal considered a misconduct case for Mili Shah. It recorded the decision on impairment as not impaired and found the doctor's fitness to practise was not impaired. The source PDF contains the tribunal's published reasons, with any private material redacted where required.
Charges
The MPTS PDF background states: 2. Dr Shah qualified in 2003 from University of Nottingham Medical School. From September 2012 to April 2013, Dr Shah became a Locum Consultant Dermatologist at Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust. At the time of the events Dr Shah was practising as a Consultant Dermatologist at Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). 3. The facts found proved at Dr Shah’s hearing which took concluded in March 2025 (‘the March 2025 Tribunal’) can be summarised as follows. 4. Between 19 April 2021 and 19 May 2022, Dr Shah failed to complete 10 patient letters within an appropriate time frame. 5. Between 12 July 2021 and 26 July 2021, Dr Shah failed to provide good clinical care to three patients. Regarding Patient A, Dr Shah failed to arrange the excision of Patient A’s lesion; regarding Patient B, Dr Shah failed to arrange biopsy of Patient B’s lesions and regarding Patient C, Dr Shah did not refer Patient C for surgery within an appropriate time frame. Dr Shah made admissions to these heads of
Findings
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal considered a misconduct case for Mili Shah. The detail page records impairment as not impaired and the tribunal found the doctor's fitness to practise was not impaired.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.