1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr Anatta NERGUI Sept 20

Dr Anatta NERGUI

Medical practitioners tribunal – Review Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Misconduct
Hearing date from
05 Oct 2020
Hearing date to
05 Oct 2020
Details
Hearing previously sat: 17 September 2020.
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ. It is possible to observe proceedings from our Manchester hearing centre. Please give us with 14 days notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about attending this hearing
GMC reference number
5206692
Area of practice
Derby

Pre hearing information

Allegation

On 17 September 2020, the tribunal reviewed the case of Dr Nergui, whose fitness to practise was previously found impaired by reason of misconduct and whose registration was made subject to an order of conditions until 9 October 2020.

Having determined that Dr Nergui’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct on 17 September 2020, the tribunal will reconvene on 5 October 2020 to determine what sanction, if any, to impose on his registration. The tribunal extended the current order of conditions for a period of three months.


Allegations

This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.

Decisions

All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.

Journalists

If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.