Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Hearing date from
12 Jul 2021
Hearing date to
29 Jul 2021
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 14 days' notice if you would like to attend, so arrangements can be made. Contact us about observing a hearing
GMC reference number
Area of practice

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on four occasions between 22 July and 19 October 2017, Dr Canelo reviewed Patient A and failed in a number of respects, including taking a detailed history, reviewing earlier diagnosis, arranging appropriate investigations, and making contact with the regional specialist unit to discuss Patient A’s treatment plan and arrange transfer to the unit.

It is further alleged that on 25 July 2017, Dr Canelo performed a laparoscopic washout, necrosectomy and drainage of abdominal cavity on Patient A, when it was not clinically indicated and he did not have access to the required resources.

It is also alleged that between 21 July 2017 and 20 October 2017, Dr Canelo made a number of insensitive comments to Patient A’s family.



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.


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


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.