Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing
NMC panel strikes off nurse Laura Coulbeck over dishonest bereavement and pregnancy claims
The Nursing and Midwifery Council has struck off nurse Laura Coulbeck after a panel found she dishonestly obtained paid compassionate leave by claiming a bereavement that had not happened, and paid sick leave for a pregnancy-related illness when she was not pregnant.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 19 May 2026 · Updated 10 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 10 July 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Laura Coulbeck, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 20F0812E).
Decision date: 19 May 2026 · Hearing started 18 May 2026 and ended 19 May 2026
In plain English
The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that nurse Laura Coulbeck acted dishonestly by falsely telling her employer she had suffered a close family bereavement, for which she received paid compassionate leave, and by reporting pregnancy-related illness when she was not pregnant, for which she received paid sick leave. The panel found her fitness to practise impaired on public interest grounds and imposed a striking-off order, with an 18-month interim suspension pending any appeal.
Charges
That on 26 September 2021 she told her employer she had suffered a close family bereavement and from 26 September to 10 October 2021 was paid compassionate leave, dishonestly, in that she had not suffered a bereavement and knew she was not entitled to the leave; and that on one or more dates between 15 June 2022 and 7 August 2022 she reported a pregnancy-related illness to her employer and was paid sick leave, dishonestly, in that she was not pregnant at the material times. All charges found proved.
Findings
The panel found all facts proved on the balance of probabilities and determined they amounted to misconduct: repeated, deliberate dishonesty in two separate contexts, concerning highly emotive matters, which took advantage of the compassion and goodwill of colleagues and managers. It found no evidence of direct patient harm or clinical concerns, so impairment was not required on public protection grounds, but found fitness to practise currently impaired on public interest grounds given the absence of insight, remorse and remediation and a significant risk of repetition.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Ms Coulbeck made some admissions at the local level; a second mitigating feature was recorded by the panel in private.
Aggravating factors
Repeated dishonesty in two separate and distinct contexts; a pattern of misconduct over a period of time; the misconduct was premeditated; personal gain; abuse of a position of trust by taking advantage of the good nature of others; deliberate breaches of the Code; no expression of remorse; failure to engage in the fitness to practise process; absence of insight and remediation.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council 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.