Milind Gadgil
Introduction
Dr Milind Gadgil is a doctor registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) who was suspended from the medical register for five months by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal in April 2026. The tribunal found he arrived at work at a US hospital more than twice the drink-drive limit, was dismissed, then failed to tell the GMC about licence suspensions across multiple US states and denied any dismissal or sanction on a 2024 NHS job application — dishonestly .
Background Information
The underlying incident happened in the United States. On 1 May 2023, while working at Regional West Medical Center in Nebraska, Gadgil arrived at work with breathalyser readings of .222 and .259 — readings the tribunal recorded — and was dismissed. The Nebraska medical board suspended his licence for six months under an Agreed Settlement he signed on 12 March 2024, and the medical boards of Maryland, Tennessee, Maine and Texas subsequently suspended his licence as well .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated (regulatory), not a criminal case. The dishonesty findings below were made by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal applying the civil standard of proof. Nothing in the fetched record establishes any criminal charge in the UK arising from these matters.
On his GMC registration applications dated 1 September 2023 and 12 October 2023, Gadgil failed to declare licences held in Nebraska, Maine, Maryland, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, Alabama and Minnesota, and the tribunal found this was dishonest. On a 26 March 2024 NHS job application to Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust, he answered that he had no dismissals or sanctions; the tribunal found that answer dishonest too. He also failed to notify the GMC of any of the overseas suspension determinations .
The tribunal’s impairment findings drew a careful line. It found his fitness to practise impaired in respect of paragraphs 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the allegation — the dishonest NHS Trust application and the failures to notify the GMC — but found fitness to practise not currently impaired in respect of the original conduct that led to the dismissal in Nebraska (allegation 1) or the GMC application dishonesty (allegations 2 to 5), having taken into account context relating to his health at the relevant times. Public confidence, it found, required impairment in respect of the dishonest job application and the concealment from the regulator .
On aggravation, the tribunal identified that the misconduct undermined a system designed to protect the public: the failures to provide accurate information to his regulator and prospective NHS employer deprived both of the ability to investigate his professional and regulatory history. It suspended his registration for five months, directed a review hearing, and imposed an immediate order .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequence is the five-month suspension, in force immediately from 14 April 2026, with a review directed. The case is recorded in MedicWatch’s listing of doctors suspended in 2026; no public statement from Gadgil, the NHS trust or any US medical board appears in the fetched record beyond the tribunal’s determination .
The Nebraska dismissal itself sits outside the tribunal’s current-impairment finding — a distinction the page keeps deliberately: the UK sanction rests on what he told the GMC and a prospective NHS employer, not on re-punishing the US conduct. Nothing in the fetched record establishes any UK criminal charge, and none should be inferred .
Current Status
Gadgil is a suspended doctor under a five-month order imposed on 14 April 2026, in force immediately, with a review hearing directed. The tribunal’s split ruling means the suspension is anchored to the dishonesty findings about disclosure; the review will test whether that dishonesty has been addressed rather than relitigate the Nebraska incident .
Impact on Their Career/Life
The record now shows a dismissal for attending work at more than twice the alcohol limit, licence suspensions in at least five US states, and UK findings of dishonesty on regulatory and job-application declarations — the exact category of history the declaration questions exist to surface. The tribunal declined to treat the original US conduct as currently impairing, citing health context, but the dishonesty findings stand on their own and will follow him through revalidation, job applications and any future fitness-to-practise scrutiny on either side of the Atlantic .