IN THE FAMILY HEALTH
SERVICES APPEAL AUTHORITY
MR P KELLY CHAIRMAN
DR P WRAY PROFESSIONAL
MRS L WHITE
WEST HULL PRIMARY CARE
MR MICHAEL SEMENUIK
DECISION WITH REASONS
- On 3 April 2006 the Respondent was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment the length of which required the Applicant to
discharge its mandatory duty and remove the Respondent from its Dental List.
- The Applicant now applies to convert the local
removal into a National
Disqualification under National Health Service Act 1948 sec.49N.
The Respondent has been notified of the application and has indicated in
writing that it is not opposed. Both parties agree the matter can be determined without an
- A 3 year prison sentence was imposed for a fraud
upon the Dental Practice Board amounting to in excess of £600,000,
committed over a period of years. Simply put the Respondent invented
fictitious patients and forged £5,000-£8,000 worth of fraudulent claims
per month. Further particulars of the offences and background generally
are contained in a summary of the case prepared by Mr. John Hinchliffe,
Director of the Applicant Dental Agency, sent to the Respondent and read
by the panel.
- In coming to its decision the Panel has taken into
account the extensive co-operation of the Respondent throughout the long
investigation into his criminality; his assistance to the Applicant in
winding up his practice with the minimum inconvenience to his former
patients; his guilty plea and his acknowledgement that he does not resist
the application, thus saving time and expense. Against those mitigating
factors remains the substantial amount of public money involved and that
the fraud was carefully contrived, well concealed and ran over a number of
- Taking all material factors into account the Panel
determines the Respondent be disqualified from inclusion in all lists held
by all Health Authorities/Primary Care Trusts under 49F National Health
Service Act 1948 or any succeeding or replacement provision.
- Further and by virtue of The National Health
Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992 as amended (in force at
the time of the local removal) the Panel are of the opinion that the
criminal conduct of the Respondent is such that there is no realistic
prospect of a successful review of this disqualification within two years
from today and substitutes that reference by one of five years.
7. Finally, in accordance with Rule 42 (5) of
the Rules we hereby notify that a party to these proceedings can appeal this
decision under Sec 11 Tribunals & Inquiries Act 1992 by lodging notice of
appeal in the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL within 28
days from receipt of this decision.
Dated this day of
Paul Kelly, Chairman