Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Sarah Myhill, doctor (General Medical Council 2734668).
Decision date: 9 January 2026 · Hearing started 5 January 2026 and ended 9 January 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that the relevant allegations against Dr Sarah Myhill were not proved. Dr Myhill was alleged to have prepared a medical report while suspended that failed to disclose her status and contained unbalanced expert opinion. The tribunal found that the central allegation — that she prepared the report — was not proved on the balance of probabilities. The only facts found proved could not amount to misconduct and the case was concluded.
Charges
Dr Myhill was alleged to have, on or around 23 March 2023 while suspended from the medical register, prepared a medical report which failed to disclose her suspended status and potential conflict of interest, expressed unbalanced opinions outside her expertise, and acted dishonestly in doing so.
Findings
The Tribunal found that the allegation that Dr Myhill had prepared a medical report on or around 23 March 2023 was not proved. The admitted facts — that she was suspended from the medical register on 4 March 2023 and knew this — were found proved, but the Tribunal concluded these facts alone could not amount to misconduct. Accordingly no misconduct was found, the question of impairment did not arise, and the case was concluded.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.