AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)

As I have already indicated, the PCC found charge 3 proved, namely that Dr Imani had caused or permitted claims to be made in her name for the UDAs set out in Schedule C. In giving its reasoning, the PCC addressed the reliability of the raw data, saying:

“...the Committee gave careful and detailed consideration to Mr Hodivala’s closing submissions about the weight that the Committee should attach to the evidence contained in Schedule C. Mr Hodivala made reference to the non-exhaustive list of considerations identified in Section 4 of the [CEA 1995] and concluded that, ‘both the data contained in Schedule C and the evidence of audits involve multiple hearsay’ and ‘the registrant (and the Committee) have had no opportunity to check the data because all original documents, including the audit reports, have been destroyed’. He concluded that, ‘no weight should be placed on the hearsay data contained in Schedule C’.

.....

The Committee accepted Mr Lee’s evidence, which is based on his experience of working for NHS Dental Services for 32 years and his knowledge of the process, including the monthly audit of the transcribed data accuracy, gained through his work...”

The PCC then summarised and accepted Mr Lee’s evidence of the auditing process and his “clear evidence” as to the arrangements by which practitioners could check the accuracy of information about “which FP17 forms have been processed, UDA values, patient charges processed and details of payments”. The PCC noted that the PF17 forms were no longer available, but rejected Mr Hodivala’s submission that in these circumstances it was “impossible to assess the adequacy or the reliability of either the process or the results”. Mr Lee’s evidence describing the quality assurance methods and the accuracy of the process was “credible”, and the PCC noted the absence of “widespread concerns from the dental profession” over the accuracy of the process of data capture. The PCC acknowledged that Schedule C contained multiple hearsay and that “there was always the potential for error in the data as it involved human input”. It referred to the “minor errors drawn to its attention” such as the mis-spelt names. The PCC concluded:

“...The Committee also accepts that the quality control process did reveal an extremely low level of error (0.1%). The Committee considered this extremely minimal level of error, identified by the quality control process, was so miniscule that it did not justify Mr Hodivala’s assertion that no weight whatsoever should be placed on the data in Schedule C because that data was not reliable.

In conclusion, the Committee determined that it was appropriate and fair to place weight on the information contained in Schedule C because that information was reliable.”