Josu Mendiguren
Introduction
Dr Josu Mendiguren is a doctor registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) whose suspension from the medical register was extended by a further twelve months in May 2026, after a review tribunal found his fitness to practise remained impaired by misconduct and a criminal conviction. His registration had first been suspended in 2025 over a drink-driving conviction and findings that he attended work and conducted a telephone consultation while affected by alcohol. He did not attend the 2026 review and provided no evidence .
Background Information
The underlying case was determined by a 2025 tribunal, which found that Mendiguren had been convicted of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On the misconduct side it found he had attended work whilst affected by alcohol, conducted one telephone consultation in that state, and failed to notify the GMC of his conviction without undue delay. That tribunal found the matters serious and suspended his registration for six months, directing a review. A further head of impairment was considered in private and is redacted from the public record .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Criminal conviction, recorded as such. The drink-driving element is a criminal conviction in a court of law; the work-related findings were made by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal applying the civil standard in the fitness-to-practise process.
The 2025 tribunal’s findings established the conduct that ended his unrestricted practice: a conviction for driving with excess alcohol, working while affected by alcohol — including a live telephone consultation with a patient — and a late notification of the conviction to his regulator. The tribunal found these matters serious enough to suspend him for six months and to direct a review of his progress .
That review, held on 26 May 2026, became a case about non-engagement. Mendiguren did not attend, was not represented, and provided no evidence; the tribunal was satisfied he had been properly notified and proceeded in his absence. It found he had disengaged from the regulatory process entirely and had provided none of the evidence of insight or remediation the 2025 tribunal had suggested. His lack of engagement increased the risk of repetition, placing the current risk to public protection at a high level and the case at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness .
On sanction, the tribunal found conditions of practice would be unworkable given his non-compliance. It considered erasure but rejected it as disproportionate given the relatively short initial suspension, and instead imposed a further twelve-month suspension to allow him to re-engage, develop insight and remediate, directing a further review .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The concrete consequences are the 2025 six-month suspension and the further twelve-month suspension imposed on 26 May 2026, together removing him from practice for the review period. The case is recorded in MedicWatch’s listing of doctors suspended in 2026; no employer statement or public comment from Mendiguren appears in the fetched record .
The case reads as unresolved by design: the tribunal extended the suspension specifically to create space for re-engagement, while finding that the current risk to public protection sat at a high level. Nothing in the fetched record establishes any further criminal proceedings beyond the 2025 drink-driving conviction .
Current Status
Mendiguren is a suspended doctor under a further twelve-month order imposed on 26 May 2026, with another review directed. He has disengaged from the process, and the tribunal has already found conditions unworkable and erasure disproportionate; the next review will decide between restoration and a tougher outcome depending on whether he engages at all .
Impact on Their Career/Life
A doctor who conducts a consultation while affected by alcohol converts a private drinking problem into a patient-safety matter, and the tribunal treated it that way — but it was his silence since that hardened the outcome. Non-engagement meant no evidence of insight, a high repetition-risk finding, and the loss of the mitigation that kept colleagues in comparable cases at medium or low risk bands. His registration now survives review to review, and each one he skips makes erasure the likelier endpoint .