AC-2025-LON-000160 - [2025] EWHC 3006 (Admin)

Fecha: 14-Nov-2025

Section 1

This is a statutory appeal by Mr Mohsen Mobasseri (“Mr Mobasseri”) under section 29 of the Dentists Act 1984. On 13 December 2024, after a 12 day hearing, a Professional Conduct Committee of the Dental Professional Hearings Service (“the PCC”) found that Mr Mobasseri’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and determined that his name should be erased from the Dental Register. He appeals against certain of the findings made in respect of some of the charges against him, and against the sanction of erasure.

The charges against Mr Mobasseri included a series of matters of alleged misconduct, a number of which were alleged to have involved dishonesty on his part. Before the PCC, Mr Mobasseri admitted a number of the matters of misconduct, and also admitted that some of his misconduct had been dishonest. The PCC found that almost all the charges against him were proved, including almost all the allegations of dishonesty. Mr Mobasseri appeals against some of those matters of misconduct, and against all the findings of dishonesty that he had not admitted before the PCC.

The charges against Mr Mobasseri involved a total of 29 of his NHS patients, who were referred to in two groups – one group by the numbers 1-15, and the other by the letters A-O (with the exception of L). The matters found proved by the PCC at stage one (by reference to the numbered charges pursued before the PCC) were, in summary, as follows:

In relation to Patients 1 to 15:

Failure adequately to carry out a Basic Periodontal Examination (“BPE”) in 14 of the patients (Patients 1-14). Mr Mobasseri had admitted there was a failure to record BPEs for the relevant appointments, but contended he had nonetheless carried out BPEs. The PCC found he had not done so. (Charge 1(a)).

Insufficient treatment planning for 4 of the patients (Patients 6, 9, 10 and 12) before providing Invisalign orthodontic treatment. This was denied by Mr Mobasseri but found proved by the PCC. (Charge 1(b)).

A failure adequately to store radiographs for 2 patients (Patients 1 and 7), which was admitted and found proved. (Charge 2).

Failure to maintain an adequate system of record keeping in respect of all 15 patients. This was admitted by Mr Mobasseri and found proved by the PCC. (Charge 3)

Retrospective amendment of the clinical records of all 15 patients, which Mr Mobasseri admitted was, and the PCC found to be, misleading and dishonest. (Charge 4 and Charge 7).

ii)

In relation to Patients A to O:

retrospective amendment of the clinical records of each of the patients when they were requested by the NHS authorities. Mr Mobasseri admitted this was, and the PCC found it to be, misleading and dishonest. (Charge 6 and Charge 7).

the submission of 7 inappropriate claims to the NHS for payment (Patients B, C, D, E, F, I and K). Mr Mobasseri admitted that 6 of these claims were misleading (he denied it in the case of Patient I) but denied that any were dishonest. The PCC found all 7 to be misleading, and all but one (Patient E) to be dishonest. (Charge 5 and Charge 7).

(The way that the charges 4-7 were structured was that charges 4 to 6 comprised the allegations of the relevant conduct, and charge 7 contained the allegation that the conduct at charges 4 and/or 5 and/or 6 was (a) misleading and (b) dishonest).

The PCC gave its decision on stage two on 13 December 2024. It determined that the facts it had found proved were serious and amounted to misconduct, that Mr Mobasseri’s fitness to practice as a dentist was impaired, and that the appropriate sanction was erasure from the Register.

In this appeal, Mr Mobasseri does not seek to challenge:

The findings under Charge 1(b) insofar as they relate to Patients 6 and 12,

ii)

Anything relating to Charges 2 or 3,

iii)

The matters relating to Charge 4 and the associated finding under Charge 7 that this conduct was misleading and dishonest,

iv)

The findings under Charge 5 (except for Patient I) and the associated finding under Charge 7 that this conduct was misleading (except for Patient I), and

The matters relating to Charge 6 and the associated finding under Charge 7 that this conduct was misleading and dishonest.

The grounds of appeal as presented and developed at the hearing were, as acknowledged by Mr Horne KC (who appeared for Mr Mobasseri) at the outset, in some instances refined somewhat from the written grounds of appeal (to which presentation the Respondent (“the GDC”) took no objection). The challenges to the PCC’s decision made by Mr Mobasseri were summarised at the start of Mr Horne’s skeleton argument as follows:

The PCC erred:

in finding that Mr Mobasseri did not undertake BPEs for Patients 1 to 15 (Charge 1(a));

in the basis of its finding of insufficient treatment planning for Patients 9 and 10 (Charge 4);

in finding that the claim for urgent treatment for Patient I was inappropriate (Charge 5) and misleading (Charge 7(a)); and

In finding that Mr Mobasseri acted dishonestly in submitting or causing to be submitted the inappropriate claims for payment for Patients B, C, D, F, K and I (Charge 7(b)).

Mr Mobasseri contended the above findings should be quashed.

ii)

The sanction of erasure was excessive; a period of suspension should be substituted.