David F Kirby
Introduction
David F Kirby is a chiropodist or podiatrist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number CH14206. On 22 May 2026, a review panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) found his fitness to practise remained impaired and directed that he be struck off the register when his existing suspension expired. The original misconduct, arising from a February 2022 appointment, concerned missing iodine product information in aftercare, a failure to record a discussion about nail removal, and attempting treatment after consent had been withdrawn. The review found no evidence of insight, remediation or maintained professional knowledge.
Background Information
The published record identifies Kirby only as a chiropodist or podiatrist holding HCPC registration CH14206. It does not name an employer or a clinic, and it does not describe his training or career; this page does not guess at any of them. The original allegations arose from a February 2022 appointment and concerned infection control, aftercare information, records, treatment after withdrawal of consent and confidentiality; the original panel proved all factual allegations except detritus on the treatment chair, but established misconduct only for the iodine aftercare omission, the unrecorded nail-removal discussion and the attempted treatment after consent was withdrawn. His MedicWatch profile records his most recent published outcome as striking off, decided on 22 May 2026 by the Health and Care Professions Council, while noting his registration status as not yet verified and directing readers to the official HCPC register for current details. MedicWatch aggregates regulator outcomes and states it does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Regulatory findings, not a criminal case. The findings below come from HCPTS panels applying the civil standard — the balance of probabilities. They are regulator findings, not criminal convictions, and no criminal proceedings appear in the published record. The original panel expressly did NOT find misconduct in several proved factual matters, including detritus on the treatment chair.
The original allegations concerned infection control, aftercare information, records, treatment after withdrawal of consent and confidentiality during a February 2022 appointment. The original panel proved the factual allegations except one, but found misconduct established only in three: providing aftercare information missing iodine product information, failing to record a discussion about nail removal, and attempting treatment after the patient had withdrawn consent.
At the suspension review on 22 May 2026, the panel found no evidence of insight, remediation or maintained professional knowledge, and a high risk of repetition. It found continuing impairment on both the personal and public components and concluded that further suspension would not adequately protect the public. It therefore directed striking off to take effect when the existing suspension expired — the standard escalation available to a review panel when a period of suspension has not produced remediation.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of either the original hearing or the review, and no public statements — none from Kirby or from any other party. The concrete consequences recorded in the determinations are the original suspension, and the review panel’s striking-off direction of 22 May 2026, timed to take effect as the suspension expired.
Current Status
Kirby was struck off the HCPC register by the review panel’s decision of 22 May 2026, effective when his existing suspension expired. His MedicWatch profile records striking off as his most recent published outcome, notes his registration status as not yet verified, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for his current position.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ended Kirby’s registration to practise as a chiropodist or podiatrist in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The panel’s route to that outcome matters for how the case is understood: the misconduct findings were narrow — an aftercare leaflet omission, an unrecorded conversation, and treatment attempted past withdrawn consent — but the review turned on what happened afterwards, finding that years of suspension had produced no evidence of insight, updated knowledge or remediation, which the panel treated as a higher risk than the original failings themselves.
Beyond the determinations, the published record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision, and nothing on this page should be read as going beyond it.