This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
News IN BRIEF


DENPLAN LOSES EUROPEAN COURT RULING OVER VAT One of the leading dental plan providers in the UK has expressed its disappointment after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled it must pay VAT on administration fees. Denplan, which has more than 6,500 member dentists and about 1.8 million patients, had previously won a decision in the High Court that stated VAT was not payable on administration fees the company charges to dentists.


The UK tax authorities, HMRC, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal which then asked the ECJ for a ruling. Stephen Gates, Managing Director of Denplan (pictured below), said: “The decision will make no difference whatsoever to our future business or charges.


“Denplan has paid VAT on these fees for the past 25 years and will continue to do so. This judgement is retrospec- tive and will in no way affect our pricing or activities.”


The ECJ ruled that the payment processing provided by Denplan was akin to a ‘debt collection service’ and hence excluded from the


exemption for pay- ments or transfers and


subject to VAT.


|Hew Mathewson p30|Dental imaging p46| Financial p58


Supervision for Dundee graduate


Fitness to Practise.Treatment fell way below standard expected says PCC


A Dundee Dental School graduate has been ordered to work under conditions by the General Dental Council (GDC), after his treatment was described as “deplorable”. Jonathan Gregor Drummond, who qualified in 1986 and now lives in Hampshire, was charged with failing to properly treat five patients between June 2004 and September 2008. The failings described by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) included the diagnosis and management of caries, root canal treatment, radiography, communication with patients and the prescrip- tion of antibiotics. Addressing Drummond at the hearing, the chairman of the PCC said: “The standard of your treatment was deplorable, as you recognised in your


testimony to this committee. Your failures were repeated, wide-ranging and serious. You exposed a number of your patients to significant risk of harm.


“Your failures were repeated, wide- ranging and serious. You exposed a number of your patients to significant risk of harm”


“In respect of ten patients


your record keeping was poor and well below the standard of a reasonable dentist.” However, the committee


noted that while the deficien- cies are capable of being remedied, so far they had not been. It also pointed to the fact that he had not worked since


October 2008 after Hampshire Primary Care Trust removed him from its performers list and following a decision by the Family Health Service Appeals Authority (FHSAA) in June 2009, he was disqualified from carrying out NHS work. The committee noted that


prior to this period and since qualifying in 1986 his record was unblemished. They also recognised that during the period in question he had a heavy workload, was profes- sionally isolated and his work conditions were difficult. While none of these matters were deemed to excuse the poor standard of treatment, the PCC ruled that a suspension would be a dispro- portionate punishment. The committee ordered that he must work under a series of conditions for 18 months, including working under supervision and formulating a personal development plan to address his deficiencies.


Essex GDP reprimanded by the GDC for poor quality of care


GDC HEARING


A Glasgow dentist has been reprimanded by the General Dental Council (GDC) after failing to provide a proper standard of care to a patient over a period of 18 months. Atul Gandecha, who graduat- ed from Glasgow Dental School in 1990 but who currently lives in Essex, admitted carrying out treatment that was not in the patient’s best interests in September 2006 and in the following months.


The charges centred around a failure to adequately diagnose


10 Scottish Dental magazine


chronic adult periodontitis, with Gandecha proceeding to provide advanced restorations on the patients anterior teeth – namely veneers and a new crown – without treating the gum disease first.


It was also found that the dentist, while practising at the Hainault Dental Practice in Ilford, also failed to take adequate account of the patient’s occlu- sion when fitting the veneers. When the veneers fell off, in one case on several occasions, he failed to analyse why and also failed to take remedial action in relation to the veneers.


The Professional Conduct Committee reported that: “No attempt was made to analyse or remedy what other dental witnesses described as an obvious problem.”


Significant deficiencies with regards to his record-keeping for the same patient were also noted. However, while the committee decided that Gandecha’s fitness to practise is impaired, it decided that: “…a reprimand was a sufficient and proportionate sanction in this case having regard to its duty to protect the public and uphold proper standards.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74