In the Family Health Service Appeals Authority (FHSSA)
Application for national disqualification – Mr E
Jackson (Dentist)
Applicant.
and
Mr E Jackson
Respondent.
Oral hearing, Harrogate, 13th August,
2003. File Reference: 10482
Panel: Mr T Jones (Chairman)
Mr
R B Davies (Professional Member)
Mr
R Rhodes (Lay Member)
NATIONAL DISQUALIFICATION
Decision:
Mr E. Jackson, the Respondent,
shall be disqualified from the inclusion in any list of dental practitioners
providing personal dental services as described or referred to in Section 49N
(1) of the National Health Services Act, 1977, pursuant to the powers of the
FHSAA under subsections (3) and (4) of Section 49N of that Act.
A copy of this decision shall be
sent to the several bodies listed in rule 47 (1) of the Family Health Services
Appeals Authority (Procedure) Rules, 2001.
Notes on Decision and Reasons:
Background:
The Applicant removed the
Respondent from its area General Dental Service List effectively from 19th
February, 2003. There was no appeal against this decision by the Respondent.
On the 24th February, 2003, the
Applicant wrote to the FHSAA requesting a decision that the Respondent be
nationally disqualified.
A hearing was convened at Harrogate
on the 3rd June, 2003. The Applicant sent a Representative; the
Respondent did not attend. In order that the issues the Applicant raised with
the Panel, any other issues outside those already dealt with in the criminal
proceedings or disclosed to the Respondent it was in the interests of justice
to adjourn. Further, in order that documents the Applicant wished to rely upon
could be served on the Respondent, the matter was adjourned with directions
given. This was to ensure the Respondent would be in no doubt as to the matters
to be put before us and have ample opportunity of responding thereto.
The Applicant’s Case:
The Applicant considers the
Respondent’s conduct as described in the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge
Robertshaw’s, sitting at Sheffield Crown Court on 20th November
2002, amply demonstrates that his continued inclusion in national lists would
be prejudicial to the efficiency of the national health service. A copy of the sentencing remarks has been
served and therein it is recorded. …“
You stand disgraced now, having let your profession down. Undoubtedly you face
utter ruin, but, of course, those are circumstances which do not mean it is
inappropriate for the Court to mark, by an appropriate sentence of punishment,
the seriousness of the matter of which you now stand convicted by the Jury’s
verdict: five different patients – that is half the number of patients who gave
evidence in the course of your trial – dishonest claims for sedation work that
plainly was not done, and dishonest claims for extractions of special
difficulty, which were neither done nor, indeed, required.
The sum involved in theses offences
of fraud, in money terms, is quite simply paltry (about £150), but the breach
of trust involved – in a system of remuneration based on trust – is one which,
in my judgement, is enormous.
I take into account the
consequences both to you and indeed to your family of what has happened in this
Court today. But a signal has to be given, it seems to me, not only to the
dental profession, but to all professional men and women that, if you enjoy the
privileges of professional status and the respect of your fellow citizens that
goes along with that status, if you fall from grace, if you commit mean, paltry
offences of dishonesty in the course of professional responsibilities, then
immediate imprisonment will follow.
…..That sentence will be one of
three months imprisonment.”
The Applicant also filed a report
from the NHS Counter Fraud Service dated 10th December, 2002. The
Applicant did not attend the final hearing giving prior notice of this
intention to the FHSAA.
The Respondent’s case:
The Respondent did not attend. He
sent one letter of the 18th July, 2003, to the Applicant
acknowledging receipt of the Applicant’s bundle, making it clear he had no
interest in being kept on any NHS list and that he would not be attending the
forthcoming hearing.
Reasons for our decision:
Our starting point was that
National Disqualification is a serious measure likely to adversely affect the
career of the dental professional, and therefore should only be imposed in a
serious case. The Counter Fraud service report does not assist us, its
assertions have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed some of the
counts proceeded with were not proved before the Jury. The report assists only
as to why the Respondent’s claims were examined.
The facts have been put before us
and the Respondent. We note that the facts called for explanation or response
from him. He has been given every opportunity to do such. He has advised the
Applicant that he was aware of the application and has chosen not to attend.
The Applicant has filed and served
documentation in relation to the Judge’s sentencing remarks which show this to
be a serious case. We are satisfied therefore, that the Respondent’s continued
inclusion in the list would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the services to
be offered to the public using the national health service.
The order sought by the Applicant
shall be made in the terms recited above.
Appeal:
Finally, in accordance with Rule
42(5) of the Rules, we hereby notify the Respondent that he may have rights
relating to appeals under Section 11 of the Tribunal and Enquiries Act 1992.
Mr T Jones………………………..
Mr R Rhodes
Harrogate, 13th August,
2003.