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

I turn next to the finding that dishonesty was not proven in respect of charge 6(a), as this is also relied upon by Mr Hodivala by way of alleged inconsistency in the PCC’s conclusions. Charge 6(a) concerned a claim for Band 2 treatment in respect of Patient 3 on 6 August 2013. There was no record of Band 2 treatment having been provided on this date and the PCC found that Dr Imani had not provided any Band 2 treatment for the period claimed. The PCC explained their conclusion that dishonesty had not been proved, as follows:

“The Committee noted that the records indicate that this patient did attend an emergency appointment at which he received treatment on 6 August 2013...but there is no evidence to persuade the Committee that Band 2 treatment was provided that day.

However, looking at the evidence in the round, taking into account that treatment did take place on 6 August 2013, that your practice was chaotic, disorganised and you did not give the required attention to the completion of FP17s, the Committee concluded that the GDC had not proved to the requisite standard that you submitted this claim believing that it was for UDAs to which you were not entitled. Instead the Committee determined that you sent this claim in without properly checking the form before it was signed by you and submitted. You were careless, but your conduct would not be viewed as dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary and decent people.”