Yuliyan S Dimov
Introduction
Yuliyan S Dimov is a physiotherapist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number PH87405. On 6 January 2026, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) — the Conduct and Competence Committee, at the end of a two-day substantive hearing that opened on 5 January — directed that he be struck off the register, his fitness to practise found impaired by reason of convictions proved through the memorandum of conviction and by misconduct established on particulars 2 and 3 of the allegation.
Background Information
The published record identifies Dimov as a physiotherapist holding HCPC registration PH87405. It does not name an employer or service, describe his training, or detail the underlying offences, and this page does not guess at any of that. MedicWatch — an independent record service that aggregates publicly published decisions of UK healthcare regulators and 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
Conviction case, with a misconduct overlay. The conviction ground rests on a criminal conviction proved through the memorandum of conviction; the misconduct particulars were found by an HCPTS panel applying the civil standard. The underlying offences are not described in the public window, and this page does not speculate about them.
The allegation was framed in statutory terms: that Dimov’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of, among other grounds, a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence. Because the case was a conviction case in part, and the panel had been provided with the memorandum of conviction, it found the fact of the convictions proved and the statutory conviction ground made out. The panel then went on to consider whether the matters found proved at particulars 2 and 3 amounted to misconduct, and found that they did.
On impairment, counsel for the HCPC directed the panel to the fitness-to-practise practice note and to Standards 9, 9.1 and 9.5 of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics — the requirements to be honest and trustworthy and to make sure one’s conduct justifies the public’s trust in the profession. She submitted that the conduct was a serious falling short, that it had caused patient harm to the relevant service users, and that the convictions would undoubtedly undermine public confidence in the profession. The panel’s direction 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 Dimov or any other party. The concrete consequences are the convictions themselves and the striking-off direction of 6 January 2026. The HCPC’s submissions — patient harm caused to service users, and convictions that would undermine public confidence — stand in the published window as the regulator’s assessment of why the case merited the register’s exit door rather than a lesser sanction.
Current Status
Dimov was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 6 January 2026. 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 Dimov’s registration to practise as a physiotherapist in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The case shows the dual-track shape of UK fitness-to-practise law: a conviction ground, where the panel carries the criminal court’s findings across through the memorandum of conviction without re-trying them, running alongside misconduct particulars the panel itself must prove to the civil standard. Here both tracks concluded against him — the conviction ground made out and particulars 2 and 3 found to amount to misconduct — with the regulator anchoring its impairment case in the honesty-and-trust standards that sit at the core of the HCPC’s code. Beyond the determination, the published record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision.