Lorna Margaret Carey

Introduction

Lorna Margaret Carey is a former mental health nurse whose name was removed from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register at the conclusion of a substantive hearing that sat from 28 to 30 July 2026. A Fitness to Practise panel found that between January 2022 and April 2023 she used money her employer had earmarked to reward colleagues for her own personal use, and that in doing so she acted dishonestly. The same panel found that she failed to cooperate with the NMC’s enquiries about her health, and that her fitness to practise was currently impaired by her misconduct and, separately, on the grounds of ill health. It made a striking-off order and imposed an 18-month interim suspension to cover the appeal period .

Background Information

Carey was a registered nurse on the NMC register under personal identification number 05I1992S, practising as a mental health nurse. The role that carried her before the regulator was managerial rather than clinical: as a line manager she held her employer’s ‘Prosper’ reward funds — money designated for formal ‘rewards’ for colleagues — for distribution to staff. That placed her in a position of trust over money meant to recognise other people’s work.

Between 14 January 2022 and 01 April 2023, on various dates across roughly fifteen months, she used those funds for her own personal use instead. The determination does not record the sums involved; what it records is the shape of the conduct — repetitive misuse, sustained over an extended period, and followed by an attempted cover-up.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated (regulatory). The findings in this section were made by a Nursing and Midwifery Council panel on the balance of probabilities — a civil standard, not a criminal conviction. All four charges were found proved; none were found not proved.

The NMC’s case against Carey comprised four charges. Charge 1 alleged that on various dates between 14 January 2022 and 01 April 2023 she “used funds belonging to your employer, designated for formal ‘rewards’ for your colleagues, for your own personal use”. Charge 2 alleged that this conduct was dishonest, in that she knew she was not entitled to use the money as her own. Charge 3 alleged that she failed to cooperate with the NMC fitness to practise investigation in that she did not engage with requested enquiries about her health. Charge 4 alleged that she has or has had a health condition as listed in Schedule 1.

The panel found all four charges proved and none not proved. On the first two, it found that Carey used employer ‘Prosper’ reward funds, held by her as a line manager for distribution to staff, for her own personal use, and that — applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos — her conduct was dishonest: she knew the money was not hers to spend. On the third, it found she failed to cooperate with the NMC’s enquiries about her health, contrary to paragraph 23 of the Code. The health allegation at charge 4 was likewise found proved. The panel determined that charges 1, 2 and 3 amounted to misconduct that fell significantly short of the standards expected of a registered nurse, and that all four limbs of the Smith test in Grant were engaged. It found her fitness to practise currently impaired by reason of her misconduct in respect of charges 1 to 3 and, separately, in light of her health in respect of charge 4.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The outcome was the most severe sanction available to the panel: a striking-off order. Its reasoning carries a nuance. Because striking-off is “not available for health cases”, the panel considered that sanction only in respect of the misconduct charges. The striking-off order therefore rests on the misuse of funds, the dishonesty finding and the failure to cooperate — not on the health finding, even though ill health independently established current impairment .

In reaching sanction the panel weighed a short list of mitigating factors against a considerably longer list of aggravating ones. In mitigation, it took into account one factor that is redacted in the published record, and that Carey had previously expressed remorse for her actions. The aggravating features were extensive: she had demonstrated very limited insight; she misused employer funds in breach of trust; she did so repetitively and over an extended period; she attempted to cover up the misuse of funds; her actions caused harm to her employer’s finances and reputation; her actions caused harm to employee motivation and trust; and she failed to engage both with the NMC’s investigation and with the Fitness to Practise process, without reason.

Current Status

Lorna Margaret Carey was struck off the NMC register, the panel announcing its decision on 30 July 2026. The regulator calls this erasure: her name has been removed from the register and she is no longer permitted to practise as a nurse in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite, so any route back to the register lies years away. An interim suspension order of 18 months was imposed to cover the 28-day appeal period, meaning that if she appeals the decision she remains suspended from the register rather than practising while it is determined.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ended Carey’s nursing career in the UK. The registration on which her professional practice rested is gone, and with it the legal ability to work as the mental health nurse she trained to be. The findings that ended it are grave: dishonesty sustained across some fifteen months, committed against an employer that had entrusted her with money meant for her own team, and then covered up.

The dual basis of the impairment adds a further dimension to the record she carries. Her fitness to practise was found impaired both by misconduct and, separately, by ill health — yet she did not engage with the enquiries the NMC requested about her health. Any future application for review of her erasure would fall to be assessed against findings of dishonesty under the Ivey v Genting Casinos standard, extensive aggravating features, and very limited insight.