Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes off Markus Matkovits over patient care and record failings
An HCPTS panel struck off physiotherapist Markus Matkovits after proving serious patient-care and record-keeping failings and finding a significant risk of repetition.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 23 May 2024 · 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 Markus Matkovits, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH66733).
Decision date: 23 May 2024 · Hearing started 16 May 2024 and ended 23 May 2024
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that Markus Matkovits committed misconduct through serious patient-care and record-keeping failings. It found his fitness to practise impaired on personal and public grounds, citing very limited insight and a significant risk of repetition. The panel did not prove the alternative dishonesty particulars. It decided no lesser sanction would protect the public and struck him off.
Charges
The amended allegation concerned Markus Matkovits's treatment and assessment of three patients, failures to arrange requested physiotherapy, retrospective and incomplete records, about 300 sets of incomplete notes, and a later delay uploading notes. Alternative particulars alleged that he falsely recorded and described contraindicated treatment and acted dishonestly.
Findings
The panel proved particulars 1 to 5, including treating a respiratory patient despite a restriction, providing contraindicated treatment, failures concerning two other patients, about 300 incomplete records and delayed notes. It did not prove the alternative false-account and dishonesty particulars. It found misconduct, not lack of competence, and impairment on personal and public grounds, then ordered striking off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
Matters were repeated and serious; The Registrant failed to follow a direct management instruction not to treat a certain category of patient; The Registrant had very little insight into his shortcomings. In paragraphs 87 and 88 of this determination, when explaining its reasons for finding current impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel stated that fundamentally, the Registrant saw the problem as arising from the Trust's failings, rather than from any shortcomings of his own. Nothing the Registrant said in his submissions on sanction enabled the Panel to decide that the Registrant had moved from that position. It was true that in his submissions on sanction the Registrant did acknowledge that Patient C (who suffered a fracture at the site of her knee replacement when she descended towards the floor) suffered harm, but nothing he said acknowledged that Patients A and B were exposed to the risk of serious harm; There was a very significant risk of repetition.
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.