Dermot Hynan
Introduction
Dermot Hynan is a chiropodist and podiatrist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number CH30971. On 11 December 2025, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) — the Conduct and Competence Committee, at the end of a substantive hearing that had opened on 8 December — directed that he be struck off the register, having found his fitness to practise impaired by misconduct that included a pattern of sexual and dishonest conduct against multiple female patients and an abuse of his professional position.
Background Information
The published record identifies Hynan as a chiropodist and podiatrist holding HCPC registration CH30971. It does not name an employer or service, describe his training, or give his years in practice, and this page does not guess at any of them. MedicWatch — an independent record service that aggregates publicly published decisions of UK healthcare regulators and states that it does not editorialise their findings — carries his case with erasure as the most recent outcome, added to its index on 5 May 2026, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for current registration details.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Regulatory findings, not a criminal case. The findings below come from an HCPTS panel applying the civil standard — the balance of probabilities. They are regulator findings, not criminal convictions, and no criminal proceedings form part of this case.
The panel found that Hynan had engaged in sexual and dishonest conduct against more than one female patient — not a single lapse but a pattern of behaviour repeated across a period of time. In aggravation, counsel for the HCPC drew the panel to its abuse of professional position: Hynan had breached the trust that patients place in a registered professional and failed the patients who had relied on him as such. The panel also found a lack of insight — his evidence offered in support of his admissions was assessed as superficial, and his response did not engage with the full weight of what had been alleged against him and found proved.
On impairment, the panel reasoned that on the basis of its findings — unwarranted risk of harm, bringing the profession into disrepute, breaching the fundamental tenets of the profession, and dishonesty — public confidence in the profession and its regulation would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment. It held that a failure to find current impairment on the misconduct and lack of competence would seriously undermine public trust and would fail to uphold and declare proper standards, and so found his fitness to practise currently impaired on both the personal and public components. At sanction, the HCPC told the panel there were no mitigating factors in the case, and the direction that followed was removal from the register — striking off.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of the hearing and no public statements from Hynan or any other party. The concrete consequence is the striking-off direction of 11 December 2025, which removed him from the HCPC register and ended his ability to practise as a chiropodist or podiatrist in the UK. The regulator’s own characterisation — a pattern of sexual and dishonest conduct against multiple patients, marked by an absence of mitigating factors — is the most severe posture a misconduct case can take short of a conviction ground.
Current Status
Hynan was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 11 December 2025. His MedicWatch profile records erasure 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 Hynan’s registration and his career as a registered chiropodist unless a future restoration application succeeds — an application that would have to confront the panel’s finding of superficial insight head-on, since insight is precisely what restoration panels examine first. The case’s defining feature is repetition: the panel did not treat the conduct as an isolated boundary failure but as a pattern across multiple patients over time, and patterns are what regulatory sanctions are least forgiving of, because they defeat the assumption that a single remediable lapse explains itself. The regulator’s submission that no mitigating factors existed — uncontradicted in the published window — left the sanction ladder with nothing to slow it before the top step. Beyond the determination, the published record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision.