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 Pinchas David Comisky, doctor (General Medical Council 7133581).
Decision date: 9 June 2025 · Hearing started 9 June 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal considered a misconduct case for Pinchas David Comisky. 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 Comisky qualified in 2011 at the University of Aberdeen. After completing his foundation training, Dr Comisky chose to specialise in Psychiatry. Between 16 July 2023 and 12 October 2023, Dr Comisky provided services via Updoc, a telehealth platform. The 2024 Tribunal 3. Dr Comisky was brought before his regulator because following a fitness to work assessment referral for Mr A, it was alleged that Dr Comisky failed to obtain an adequate medical history from Mr A as he did not make further enquiries about Mr A’s episode of feeling faint and falling. It was further alleged that Dr Comisky inappropriately approved and signed the letter confirming Mr A was fit to return to work, when he had not sufficiently assessed Mr A in order to come to that conclusion. The letter did not refer to a possible diagnosis and included the words ‘based on my examination’. It was alleged that these words were inappropriate, as Dr Comisky knew that he had not examined Mr A; and that Dr Comisky was dishonest when he approved and signed the letter with these words included. 4. These concerns were raised with the GMC on 1 September 2023, by Dr A who received the letter from Mr A’s employers, due to his concerns after he had reviewed the letter signed by Dr Comisky, having seen Mr A in person and performed a physical examination. 5. The facts found proved at Dr Comisky’s hearing which took place in November 2024, can be summarised as concerns relating to misconduct which arose from his failure to conduct an appropriate assessment of Mr A. Dr Comisky admitted that he had failed to obtain an adequate medical history from Mr A, in that he had not made further enquiries with him about the occasion Mr A felt faint and suffered a fall, which was inappropriate. 6. Dr Comisky also admitted he...
Findings
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal considered a misconduct case for Pinchas David Comisky. 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.