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

It is necessary to consider the PCC’s reasoning in respect of charge 4(c) because, as I have indicated, Mr Hodivala submits that the appealed findings of dishonesty are inconsistent with the finding that dishonesty was not proven in relation to this allegation. A claim had been made for treatment provided on 31 March 2015, but there was no evidence of an appointment or of treatment being given to Patient 15 on that date. This charge did not concern an instance where a claim was made in one contract year in respect of treatment that was in fact provided in the following year.

The PCC considered the experts’ suggestion that the claim may have related to treatment provided on 9 April 2015 to be speculative. In her evidence, Dr Imani had suggested that the claim related to emergency treatment provided on either 31 March 2015 or on 19 February 2015. Noting the absence of any supporting records for 31 March 2015, the PCC considered this suggestion to also be speculative. The Committee noted that 19 February 2015 pre-dated the date on the claim form and that there had been no claim made for treatment provided on that date, but accepted that this may have been an emergency appointment at that time. The PCC also accepted that the Appellant was attempting to assist the Committee in piecing the events together. Accordingly, on the Committee’s findings this was a situation where treatment claimed for 31 March 2015 may in fact have taken place earlier in the same year on 19 February.

The PCC explained its conclusion on dishonesty as follows:

“With regard to dishonesty, the Committee considered your state of mind at the time. It finds credible your evidence that you were running two practices, which were very busy, and that your main focus was on treating patients rather than dealing with the administration and paperwork involved. The Committee noted that this is reflected in the poor standard of your record keeping. Both Dr Scott and Dr Pal were critical of your record keeping. You acknowledged that your record keeping was poor.

You were responsible for signing the FP17 claim forms to verify that they were correct. The Committee found your evidence that:

‘I don’t think we were 100% diligent about signing a paper and sending it off because I always thought if anything is wrong they send it back...’

to be consistent with the chaotic nature of you [sic] practice and your approach towards the completion of FP17 claim forms.

The Committee considered that your approach to completing and submitting the FP17 claim form may have been negligent. However, it reminded itself that negligence, even gross negligence, does not amount to dishonesty.

The Committee, therefore determined that when this claim was made, you were not complying with your responsibilities as a dentist/performer, but you did not submit it knowing or believing that you were not entitled to the UDAs claimed. The Committee then determined that your conduct would not be viewed as dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary and decent people.”