A General Medical Council disciplinary panel previously ruled that Dr Freddy Patel acted in a way that amounted to misconduct in two earlier post-mortem examinations, meaning his fitness to practise was impaired.
The panel also ruled that Dr Patel had displayed deficient professional performance in a third post-mortem.
He has already been suspended from the Home Office register of forensic pathologists after questions were asked about the autopsy carried out on the body of 47-year-old Mr Tomlinson, who died in London in April last year.
The panel had already concluded that Dr Patel was "irresponsible" and failed to meet professional standards during his examinations of the bodies of a five-year-old girl in 2002, a four-week-old baby in 2003 and a woman who died in 2005.
Dr Patel, 63, behaved irresponsibly, failed to meet standards expected of a Home Office pathologist and acted in a way liable to bring the profession into disrepute when he changed the woman's cause of death in 2005, the panel found.
He carried out a post-mortem examination on January 5 2005, and decided she had died due to a blood clot in the coronary arteries.
A month later, following a second post-mortem by another pathologist, he prepared an addendum to his report, changing the cause of death to a brain haemorrhage in line with the new findings.
Dr Patel told an inquest into the woman's death he had changed the primary cause of death "to satisfy the family".
But panel chairman Richard Davies said the pathologist's assumption that the change made no difference from the coroner's viewpoint, as the death was not suspicious, and merely allowed an inquest to proceed was not an adequate explanation.
In the GMC ruling, Mr Davies said Dr Patel's "acts and omissions were very serious" and amounted to misconduct.
He said pathologists "must not set aside their professional judgment for any of the parties involved during or after a post-mortem examination for reasons of expediency or anything else".
Dr Patel's failure to note the weights of individual organs examined, as is recommended by Royal College of Pathologists' guidance, showed deficient professional performance.
Dr Patel was also found to be guilty of misconduct in a post-mortem examination on the four-week-old baby in August 2003.
Richard Davies, chairman of the GMC panel, said suspension was necessary as Dr Patel's shortcomings had been "very serious".
He said: "The panel considers it to be most important that the public be assured that the independence of professional forensic pathologists can be relied upon and that neither those working in the specialty, nor anyone else, should gain the impression that the misleading conduct for which you have been criticised will be treated other than with substantial seriousness.
"For these reasons, the panel has determined that a period of suspension in your registration is appropriate in your case.
"It accepts that, subject to a number of expectations being fulfilled, there could well be a genuine public interest in your returning to practice and to giving dependable and worthwhile service for the future."
Dr Patel will face a fitness to practise panel at the end of his period of suspension.
There are a number of conditions he will be expected to fulfil before he is allowed to carry out any more post-mortems, Mr Davies said.
These include improving his knowledge of the law on conducting post-mortem examinations and identifying pathologists to whom he could refer cases for peer review.
Dr Patel was also told to discuss with the Royal College of Pathologists how he could find a mentor for advice and support, maintain a log of his caseload, and take part in courses during his suspension.
Dr Patel is to formally limit his practise as a pathologist to post-mortem examinations on adults in non-suspicious circumstances. He will also have to stop working as an expert witness for the defence in cases of suspicious death, the panel ruled.
Mr Davies added that Dr Patel had not fully addressed his behaviour.
He told the pathologist: "In so far as you have responded to criticism, your approach when making concessions has not been marked by frank and rounded insight.
"It also noted that you have offered no expression of regret in relation to those instances where it found shortcomings of misconduct and/or deficient professional performance.
"Indeed, the panel considers that you did not show the range and depth of insight that could reasonably be expected of an experienced forensic pathologist."
Dr Patel's period of suspension will start in 28 days to allow him to complete reports on cases he has already started. He will not be able to undertake any new post-mortem examinations.
Solicitor Simon Gomersall, speaking on behalf of Dr Patel after the hearing, said: "It would be inappropriate for Dr Patel to comment at this stage, given the possibility that he may be asked to give evidence by the coroner at the inquest into Ian Tomlinson's death.
"Dr Patel also needs time to consider the GMC's decision with his advisers."
Dr Patel refused to answer questions from reporters as he left the GMC offices in central London.
Comments