Andreas Prachalias
Introduction
Dr Andreas Prachalias is a consultant and Clinical Director at a liver unit whose conduct toward three female colleagues between late 2020 and June 2022 was found proved by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal in May 2026: intimidating behaviour toward one doctor, sexually motivated harassment of another at a work Christmas party, and direct sex discrimination against a third. He was suspended from the medical register for twelve months .
Background Information
Prachalias held a senior leadership role — consultant and Clinical Director — at a liver unit, and the tribunal found his proven conduct was linked to that seniority and occurred over time, in different settings, directed at three female colleagues within a workplace it described as toxic. The three strands were heard together: behaviour in Covid-era meetings, an incident at a work Christmas party in December 2021, and the exclusion of a colleague from a meeting in June 2022 .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated (regulatory), not a criminal case. The findings below were made by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal applying the civil standard of proof. They are not a criminal conviction, and nothing in the fetched record establishes any prosecution.
The tribunal found proved that, at meetings during the Covid pandemic, Prachalias behaved intimidatingly toward Dr A, including using expletives about patients and junior doctors. It assessed that strand of the case as mid-range in seriousness, noting it occurred amid extraordinary Covid-era pressures and was not aimed at Dr A personally .
The second strand was found at the higher end. At a work Christmas party on 10 December 2021, the tribunal found, Prachalias looked Dr B up and down, grabbed her belt, pulled her towards him and whispered ‘why don’t you dress like that more often’. That conduct amounted to sexual harassment, was found to be sexually motivated, and was found to be an abuse of his more senior position. One further allegation relating to Dr B was not proved .
The third strand was admitted. On 14 June 2022 Prachalias excluded Dr C from a meeting so that he could tell a ‘dirty man joke’ — conduct he admitted and the tribunal found proved, amounting to direct discrimination on the basis of her sex. The tribunal assessed the sexual harassment of Dr B and the discrimination against Dr C as at the higher end of seriousness, found the proven matters together amounted to serious misconduct, and determined that although patient safety was not engaged, impairment was necessary to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards .
On sanction, the tribunal found his insight developing but limited regarding Dr A and Dr B, though he had shown genuine insight and remediation regarding Dr C. It concluded his conduct was serious but not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration, rejected erasure, and imposed a twelve-month suspension with an immediate order and a directed review hearing .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequence is the twelve-month suspension, in force immediately from 21 May 2026, with a review directed before it ends. The case is recorded in MedicWatch’s listing of doctors suspended in 2026; no public statement from Prachalias, his trust or the three colleagues appears in the fetched record beyond the tribunal’s determination .
Nothing in the fetched record establishes any criminal charge arising from the same conduct, and none should be inferred from this page. The sexual harassment and discrimination findings are regulatory findings made to the civil standard .
Current Status
Prachalias is a suspended consultant under a twelve-month order imposed on 21 May 2026. The tribunal’s split findings — limited insight on the intimidation and harassment strands, genuine remediation on the discrimination strand — give the review a precise map of what remains unresolved. A clinical directorship is a leadership post, and the tribunal expressly found the conduct was linked to his senior role, which will bear on any future application to lead .
Impact on Their Career/Life
Findings of sexually motivated harassment and direct sex discrimination against three named colleagues are career-defining entries for a senior clinician, particularly one whose job was to set the culture of a unit. The tribunal rejected erasure on the basis that the conduct was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration, but the twelve-month order, the immediate effect and the directed review mean his return to practice — and to any leadership role — now runs through a panel that has already found his insight incomplete on two of the three strands .