Umalini Kathirgamanathan

Introduction

Umalini Kathirgamanathan is an occupational therapist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number OT59120. On 5 May 2026, at a mandatory review hearing, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) struck her off the register, the order taking effect on 13 May 2026 when that suspension expired. The panel found no evidence of insight, remediation, training or progress and a high risk that her previous failings would recur — the endpoint of a regulatory history stretching back to 2012.

Background Information

The record names her employer. Kathirgamanathan began work in August 2009 at Mid-Yorkshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust as a rotational Band 5 occupational therapist with its community rehabilitation and intermediate care service. Capability concerns surfaced during an extended induction period and a formal capability process began in January 2010; on 18 May 2011 the Trust dismissed her on the grounds of capability, having determined she had failed to meet her objectives.

After some seven years off the register she applied for restoration on 1 March 2022, describing support work with people with disabilities, later work in an occupational therapy team, and research, training and reflection. She was restored with conditions on 1 August 2022, and from January 2023 worked at Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust, which reported in detail to the HCPC on her progress.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Lack of competence, not misconduct. The original panel found the specified particulars amounted to lack of competence; it did not find that she falsified notes or acted dishonestly. The two particulars it classified as misconduct were both found not proved. These are civil-standard regulatory findings, not convictions.

The allegation concerned her failure to reach the standards expected of a Band 5 occupational therapist. At a hearing from 3 to 5 September 2012, the HCPC’s Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) found proved failings in caseload management, assessment skills — including issuing equipment without assessing its appropriateness — communication with staff, patients and families, clinical competence and the timely completion of patient notes, and that she had not provided sufficient evidence to pass her preceptorship. It determined the matters amounted to lack of competence and imposed a 12-month suspension order.

The suspension was extended at reviews in September 2013, which she did not attend, and September 2014; on 15 December 2014 she was granted voluntary removal from the register. The CCC that later considered her restoration found genuine remorse and significant insight, but was not persuaded she had fully remediated her failings or no longer posed a risk; satisfied those risks could be managed, it restored her with conditions.

The conditions did not produce the progress hoped for. Employer reports led the review panel of 24 April 2024 to find continuing concerns about her communication with patients and relatives, her clinical reasoning and her record-keeping, which had necessitated an extended preceptorship and a formal performance improvement plan. Kathirgamanathan acknowledged she was not yet ready to practise without restriction. The panel varied the conditions, added communication and record-keeping training and extended them for 12 months, the concerns remaining capable of remedy.

At the review of 17 April 2025 the panel again found impairment on both the personal and public components, noting the absence of any evidence of remediation, and imposed a 12-month suspension — a timeframe it said “should give the Registrant time to show a willingness and ability to make progress towards becoming an autonomous and safe practitioner”. It recorded that the previous panel had considered striking off but judged it disproportionate, while stating that “the Registrant should be in no doubt that this would be an option for a future reviewing panel”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The published record contains no press coverage of the hearings and no public statements from Kathirgamanathan or any other party. The final review also proceeded without her: by email of 21 April 2026 she said she would not attend because of the impact of the hearing on her health, having accessed the bundle but submitted no documents. The panel concluded she had voluntarily absented herself and waived her right to attend.

On impairment, the panel applied the High Court’s reasoning in Abrahaem v GMC: in practical terms a “persuasive burden” lies on the registrant at a review hearing to show she has addressed her impairment “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”. Here there was none. Her email indicated she had not been in work and had done no voluntary work or training, and no evidence of insight had been submitted. The panel accepted the deficiencies were remediable but concluded that a finding of no impairment would carry a high risk of repetition, putting service users at risk of harm.

On sanction it worked upward: a caution would not protect the public; conditions were unworkable for a registrant off sick since June 2024 and unlikely to comply; and the previous suspension had produced no meaningful progress, so a further one would change nothing. It ordered striking off, mindful of the likely personal and financial impact on her, but outweighed by the need to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession.

Current Status

Kathirgamanathan was struck off the HCPC register by the decision of 5 May 2026, effective 13 May 2026 on the expiry of her suspension. She may not practise as an occupational therapist in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds; a striking-off order may be reviewed no earlier than five years after it takes effect. Her MedicWatch profile records erasure as her most recent published outcome, notes her registration status as not yet verified, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for her current position.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Between the 2012 findings and the 2026 erasure, Kathirgamanathan never again practised without restrictions on her registration: suspension, voluntary removal, conditions, suspension, erasure. The case shows both the patience and the limits of the competence jurisdiction. Lack of competence is treated as remediable — she was restored once, a panel expressly crediting remorse and insight — but the burden of demonstrating remediation sits with the registrant, on evidence, and by 2026 there was none. The reporting conditions imposed on her restoration generated the very record by which later panels measured the absence of progress. The published record contains no information about her circumstances since.

Sources

• *MedicWatch, “HCPTS strikes off Umalini Kathirgamanathan at review” (HCPC determination, review hearing, decision dated 5 May 2026) — source
• *MedicWatch, “HCPTS panel extends Umalini Kathirgamanathan’s practice conditions” (HCPC determination, review hearing, decision dated 24 April 2024) — source
• *MedicWatch, “Umalini Kathirgamanathan — Occupational therapist · Health and Care Professions Council OT59120” — source
• *HCPTS, “Umalini Kathirgamanathan — Review Hearing, Conduct and Competence Committee, 5 May 2026” — source