Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS warns Dr David Rosewarne over missed diagnosis, finding no current impairment
The tribunal found misconduct in a missed aortic dissection diagnosis but no current impairment. It issued a warning, taking account of the isolated incident, context, insight and remediation.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 16 September 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Warning (formally warned)
Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction
What does “formally warned” mean?
A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.
Concerning Dr David Rosewarne, doctor (General Medical Council 4607308).
Decision date: 16 September 2026 · Hearing started 7 September 2026 and ended 16 September 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr David Rosewarne's failure to diagnose an aortic dissection amounted to misconduct, but his fitness to practise was not currently impaired. It found that he should have reviewed the patient's scans fully and identified abnormalities. Taking account of the isolated incident, context, insight and remediation, it issued a warning on 16 September 2026. No restriction was placed on his registration.
Charges
The GMC alleged that, on 1 July 2023, Dr Rosewarne reviewed a patient's peripheral CT angiogram at a junior trainee's request and failed to diagnose an aortic dissection.
Findings
The tribunal found that Dr Rosewarne had a duty to review the scans fully and failed both to do so and to identify abnormalities in the images he reviewed. These failures amounted to misconduct. It found no current impairment, taking account of the isolated incident, context, sufficient insight and remediation, and a very low risk of repetition. It issued a warning because repetition would be likely to lead to a finding of impairment. No restriction was placed on his registration.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.