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

The PCC heard evidence at Stage 1 of the proceedings between 23 May and 17 June 2022. Counsels’ speeches were given on 13 October 2022. Stage 2 was heard between 8 – 16 June 2023. It is unnecessary to refer to the detail of Stage 2, save to note that on 9 June 2023 the PCC announced its Stage 1 findings of fact.

By the time of the Stage 1 hearing, a number of the charges had been deleted and some had been admitted. Further admissions were made during the course of that hearing. In so far as the Appellant admitted some of the probity charges, this was done on the assumption, “there has been no error in capturing the data”. The charges used the same numbering as that deployed in Schedule C to identify particular patients and the particular FP17 claims made in respect of them. Charge 3 said:

“Between January 2012 and December 2017 you caused or permitted claims to be made in your name for...UDAs...under the provisions of the NHS as set out in Schedule C.”

Charges 4 – 9 contained the probity allegations. Charge 9 alleged that the conduct set out in charges 4, 5, 6, 7 and/or 8 was: (a) inappropriate; (b) misleading; and (c) “was dishonest in that you sought to obtain additional UDAs to which you knew you were not entitled”.

Charge 4 concerned “claims you caused or permitted...to be made for treatment that had not been provided as claimed”. Charge 4(c) related to Patient 15 and Claim 73. The Appellant admitted and the PCC found that the conduct in charges 4(c) and 4(e)(1) was proved and that Dr Imani had thereby made inappropriate claims. The PCC found that her actions were misleading, but that dishonesty was not proven. The latter finding in respect of charge 4(c) is one of the alleged inconsistencies that Mr Hodivala relies upon. The PCC found that charges 4(f) and 4(g)(2) were not proved.

Charge 5 concerned “claims you caused or permitted...to be made under Band 3 when Band 3 treatment had not been provided or had been provided but under private contract”. Charge 5(g) concerned Patient 20 and Claim 95. The PCC found that the conduct set out in charges 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(g) and 5(h) was proved and that Dr Imani had thereby made inappropriate claims. The conduct alleged in most of these charges was admitted, although it was not admitted in respect of charge 5(g). The PCC found that her actions were misleading, but that dishonesty was not proved in relation to these charges, save in respect of charge 5(g). The finding of dishonesty in respect of charge 5(g) is challenged in this appeal. Charge 5(f) was not proved.

Charge 6 concerned “claims you caused or permitted...to be made under Band 2 when Band 2 treatment had not been provided as claimed”. Charge 6(f) related to Patient 22 and Claim 107. The Appellant admitted and the PCC found that the conduct set out in charges 6(a), 6(b)(1), 6(b)(2), 6(c)(2), 6(d), 6(e), 6(f) and 6(g) was proved and that Dr Imani had thereby made inappropriate claims. The PCC found that her actions were misleading, but that dishonesty was not proved, save in relation to charge 6(f). The latter finding is challenged in this appeal. In denying that she was dishonest in respect of the admitted conduct in charge 6(f), Dr Imani said in her Schedule of Admissions: “I now accept that this was an inappropriate claim and that submitting claims for incomplete treatment at the end of the contract year is not appropriate, but I did not know that at the time”. She also said that she must have forgotten to put a cross against Band 1 in Part 3 of the FP17 to show that only incomplete treatment had thus far been provided. The conduct alleged at charges 6(c)(1), 6(h)(2) and 6(h)(3) was not proved. The finding that dishonesty was not proved in relation to charge 6(a) is a further alleged inconsistency that Mr Hodivala relies on.

Charge 7 alleged: “In respect of the following claims you caused or permitted a claim to be made with incorrect premature dates of completion: (a) Patient 1 and Claim 6; (b) Patient 2 and Claim 12; (c) Patient 6 and Claim 26; (d) Patient 8 and Claim 43; (e) Patient 11 and Claim 50; (f) Patient 22 and Claim 107; and (g) Patient 23 and Claim 109. The Appellant admitted this conduct, but she denied dishonesty on the same basis as she had indicated in respect of charge 6(f). In relation to the charge 7(c) she also said that she could not explain the dates entered and thought it to be “a mistake by whoever completed the form, which I obviously accept responsibility for”. The PCC found that her conduct was inappropriate, misleading and dishonest. The findings of dishonesty in relation to these charges are appealed by Dr Imani.

Charge 8 related to instances where it was said that the Appellant had caused or permitted a claim to be made which split a patient’s treatment into separate claims when it ought to have formed a single course of treatment. Of these, only charge 8(c) was upheld and dishonesty was not proved in relation to it.

Charges 10 – 34 related to clinical care and it is generally unnecessary to set out the detail. In general the charges alleged both a failure to provide an adequate standard of care and a failure to keep adequate records. It is only necessary to refer to the charges concerning Patient 5. Dr Imani admitted charge 15 which alleged that she had provided him with periodontal treatment by way of a scale and polish on 11 December 2015, and charge 16 that she did not record discussing with him the option of undergoing the periodontal treatment under the NHS or why the treatment was provided privately. Charge 17, which the PCC upheld, alleged that Dr Imani: “did not offer Patient 5 the option of undergoing periodontal treatment under the NHS and your conduct was thereby: (a) misleading; (b) dishonest in that you sought to obtain private payment for treatment to which the patient was entitled under the NHS”. The finding on charge 17(b) is challenged in this appeal.