Dentist struck off for altering records
A Nottingham dentist who altered records to avoid legal action has been struck off the register.
Homayoun Esfandiary gave his patient root canal treatment and a crown for one of her upper teeth at Seven Dental in Mansfield.
The General Dental Council (GDC) heard that the patient, Miss A, was left in constant need of dental work and with repeated infections.
After she complained, the GDC hearing was told her records had been changed to appear as if Mr Esfandiary had advised her that the prognosis or her teeth was poor before she was treated.
The committee chairman said: ‘The allegations made against you were that you made retrospective entries on two of patient A’s dental records on two separate occasions between March 2007 and August 2007 in relation to treatment given by you…
‘…The entries were made for the purpose of supporting your position in relation to legal proceedings to be brought by Patient A. The Committee found that you intended to falsify her records and to mislead.’
He added: ‘At the heart of this case lies an allegation of the utmost seriousness that the committee has found proved. You falsified the records of a patient of yours. You did so deliberately in order to protect your position vis a vis a patient who had written to you alleging negligent treatment and claiming the costs of remedial treatment. You made later amendments to the records, again falsely, and again to protect your position. It follows that, in attempting to protect your position, you necessarily sought to prevent the patient from recovering damages from you for professional negligence. ‘
He concluded: ‘The sequence of events, and in particular the actions of Patient A in photocopying her records unbeknownst to you, leave us in no doubt of the reasons for, and the premeditated nature of your actions.’
‘You were caught only because that patient had copied her records before you began to alter them. In the circumstances the Committee is satisfied that the facts found proven amount to misconduct and by reason thereof your fitness to practise is impaired.’