Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS strikes off Brian E Carlin for prolonged dishonesty
A panel found repeated false professional claims, no insight or remediation, and a high risk of further dishonest conduct.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 18 December 2023 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 September 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 Brian E Carlin, paramedic (Health and Care Professions Council PA01663).
Decision date: 18 December 2023 · Hearing started 15 November 2023 and ended 18 December 2023
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that paramedic Brian E Carlin repeatedly made dishonest claims about qualifications and professional roles, represented himself as a doctor and sent a threatening email. It found current impairment and a high risk of repetition, struck him off and imposed an interim suspension pending any appeal.
Charges
It was alleged that the Registrant repeatedly supplied inaccurate or false qualifications and professional roles in CVs from 2013, 2016 and 2018, represented himself and allowed others to represent him as a doctor when he was not one, and sent a threatening email to a person investigating his claims; that parts of this conduct were dishonest; that it amounted to misconduct; and that his fitness to practise was impaired.
Findings
The Panel proved extensive inaccurate and dishonest claims about qualifications and professional roles, representing himself and allowing others to represent him as a doctor, and sending a threatening email. It did not prove Particulars 1(e)(iii), 1(e)(v), 1(e)(vi), 1(e)(vii), 2(e)(iii), 2(e)(v), or 4(v). It found misconduct and current impairment on both personal and public components, a high repetition risk, and ordered striking off with an interim suspension for the appeal period of up to 18 months.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The Registrant had shown no insight, remorse or any reflection on the matters found to amount to misconduct and he had not apologised. The Registrant had not taken any steps to remediate his misconduct. The misconduct was repeated over a prolonged period of time. The misconduct involved a breach of trust of other medical professionals. The level of dishonesty in the case was at the high end of seriousness: it was for financial gain in relation to obtaining employment, or to secure positions in a variety of organisations, and/or to enhance his reputation by securing speaking roles at conferences.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions 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.