Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — restoration hearing
Restoration granted (restored to the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 26 April 2026Report a correction
What does “restored to the register” mean?
A practitioner who had been struck off applied for restoration to the register and the application was granted.
Concerning Emad El-Taweel, doctor (General Medical Council 4374707).
Decision date: 14 April 2026 · Hearing started 13 April 2026 and ended 15 April 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Emad El-Taweel, who was erased from the Medical Register in 2006 for breaching patient confidentiality by disclosing a patient's medical details to an insurance company, had shown genuine remorse, full insight and meaningful remediation. The tribunal noted he had practised in Ireland without incident since 2011 and kept his skills up to date. It decided his name should be restored to the Medical Register without restrictions.
Charges
Restoration application following disciplinary erasure in 2006. The 2006 GMC Fitness to Practise Panel found that Dr El-Taweel had breached doctor/patient confidentiality by disclosing a patient's confidential treatment details to employees of an insurance company on or around 22 May 2003 and 30 May 2003, and had acted in a manner derogatory to the reputation of the medical profession. His name was erased from the Medical Register on 3 March 2006.
Findings
The Tribunal found that Dr El-Taweel's evidence was credible and that his remorse and shame were genuine. It concluded that meaningful remediation had taken place and that he had developed full insight into the impact of his actions. The Tribunal noted he had practised continuously in Ireland since restoration to the Irish register in 2011 without further issue and had kept his medical knowledge and skills up to date through CPD, supervisory meetings and Balint group attendance. The Tribunal concluded the risk of repetition was negligible and that restoration would not undermine public confidence or proper professional standards.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.