Charge 5(b)
Charge 5(b)
I turn next to charge 5(b) because it is important to appreciate the nature of the Appellant’s misunderstanding in respect of completion of the FP17s that the PCC accepted in relation to this allegation. Charge 5(b) concerned a claim made for Band 3 treatment in respect of Patient 8, which had not been provided. The PCC noted that the records indicated that only incomplete Band 1 treatment had been provided between 27 September - 6 December 2013 (the dates given on the claim form). Dr Imani told the PCC that she had forgotten to tick the “incomplete” box on the FP17. The Committee noted that she had explained her understanding of how the form should be completed was that she could “cross Band 3 in Part 5...because Band 3 treatment was planned, and Band 1 in Part 3 as incomplete treatment because I had only conducted Band 1 work...I thought that Part 3 was used to determine how many UDAs were allocated in those circumstances. I now accept that this was an inappropriate claim”.
The PCC accepted Dr Pal’s oral evidence that he understood why a practitioner could think that Part 5 concerned a course of treatment that they had planned (as opposed to one that they had commenced) and that Part 3 related to the UDAs being claimed for a course of treatment that was incomplete, rather than Part 3 indicating what the patient should be charged (which can only relate to treatment that has actually been undertaken). The PCC accepted Dr Imani’s evidence that she had been under a misapprehension as to the inter-relationship between Part 3 and Part 5:
“...although your interpretation of how to complete the FP17 form was incorrect, you were careless and you benefitted financially from your actions when you submitted the form, you genuinely believed that you were completing it correctly. The Committee determined that the GDC has not provided cogent evidence in support of this charge and has not satisfied the burden of proof. Therefore, it determined, on the balance of probabilities, that when this claim was made, you did not submit it knowing or believing you were not entitled to the UDAs claimed.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- Facts and circumstances and the PCC’s findings
- The GDS contract and FP17
- The charges and the outcomes
- The evidence before the PCC
- The evidence, submissions and ruling in relation to Schedule C
- The submissions and the legal advice received
- The PCC’s ruling
- The PCC’s reasoning in respect of the material charges
- Charge 3
- Charge 4(c)
- Charge 4(e)(1)
- Charge 5(b)
- Charge 5(c)
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 6(a)
- Charges 6(b)(2) and 6(e)
- Charge 6(f)
- Charge 7(a)
- Charges 7(b) – 7(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- The legal framework
- Dishonesty
- Hearsay evidence
- The Appellant’s submissions
- Ground 2
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- Discussion and conclusions
- The PCC’s exercise of its discretion
- Ground 2
- Charge 5(g)
- Charge 17(b)
- Conclusions
![AC-2023-LON-002171 - [2024] EWHC 132 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)