HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC PAPADIMOS, Panagiotis Registration No: 100797 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2015 Outcome: Erasure and Immediate Suspension Panagiotis PAPADIMOS, a dentist, DipDS Thessaloniki 1981 was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 18 May 2015 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge (as amended on 18 May 2015) That being a registered dentist: 1. On 25 January 2014, you signed and submitted an application form for registration to the Dental Council of Ireland and did not: a. Declare the ongoing Professional Conduct Committee proceedings against you, b. Declare that your registration with the General Dental Council was currently suspended, c. Provide full information about your employment history between 14 November 2005 and 31 December 2010. 2. Your conduct in relation to 1 above was: a. Misleading, b. Deliberately misleading, c. Dishonest. 3. From 1 July 2014 to at least 4 August 2014 you failed to co-operate with an investigation conducted by the GDC in respect of your fitness to practise in that you did not provide: a. Details of your employer, b. Details of your indemnity insurance. AND by reason of the facts stated, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct Mr Papadimos was not present and was not represented. On 18 May 2015 the Chairman announced the findings of fact to the Counsel for the GDC: Mr Coke-Smyth, The Committee has taken into account all the evidence presented to it. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In accordance with that advice it has considered each head of PAPADIMOS, P Professional Conduct Committee May 2015 Page -1/6-
charge separately. I will now announce the Committee s findings in relation to each head of charge: 1 (a) Found proved. 1 (b) Found proved. 1 (c) Found proved. 2 (a), (b) and (c) Found not proved in respect of head of charge 1(a) and 1(b). Found proved in respect of head of charge 1(c). The Committee examined the application form completed by Mr Papadimos and dated 25 January 2014. It did not expressly require Mr Papadimos to declare any ongoing professional conduct committee proceedings against him or that his registration with the General Dental Council was currently suspended. The form contained no section relating to these matters or for other relevant information. The Committee also noted the oral evidence of Ms Ferguson from the Dental Council of Ireland ( DCI ), who stated that the DCI does not provide guidance to applicants regarding the completion of the form. She also stated that it was self-evident that any such matter should be declared. The primary question for the Committee was whether Mr Papadimos had misled the DCI by not disclosing information relating to his history of disciplinary proceedings before the GDC. The Committee concluded that he had not misled the DCI because he had not been asked the question clearly, or at all, in the application form. The omission of this information therefore could not fairly be said to be misleading, let alone deliberately misleading or dishonest. In relation to his employment history, however, he was asked to provide a record from the date of graduation up to date. The Committee considered that this required Mr Papadimos to provide at least some details of the locum appointments undertaken over a period of five years across 15 practices within the UK. His failure to do so was misleading and, in view of Mr Papadimos comments in his email dated 26 May 2014 to the DCI, the Committee was satisfied that this failure was both deliberately misleading and dishonest. 3 (a) Found proved. 3 (b) Found proved. We move to Stage Two. On 19 May 2015 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Mr Coke-Smyth, The Committee has considered your submissions on behalf of the General Dental Council ( GDC ). It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser in reaching its decisions. PAPADIMOS, P Professional Conduct Committee May 2015 Page -2/6-
Service of the documents Mr Papadimos was not present and not represented in the hearing. The Committee first considered whether service of the documents had taken place in accordance with the relevant rules. The Committee examined the notification letter dated 17 April 2015 sent to Mr Papadimos registered address by international recorded delivery. The Committee noted the certificate from Royal Mail which confirms that the notification was delivered on 27 April 2015. The letter was also sent to Mr Papadimos last known email address, and the Committee was provided with receipts which indicate that the email was received, and that the documents relating to this hearing were subsequently downloaded via a link in the email. The Committee was concerned that the notification letter did not expressly refer to the allegation that Mr Papadimos fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. However, the Committee considered paragraph 13(1)(e) of The Fitness to Practice Rules 2006 ( the Rules ) and determined that the grounds of allegation were, as required by the Rules, adequately set out in the letter in spite of this omission. In the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the notice had been served in compliance and accordance with the Rules. Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant The Committee next considered whether it was fair to proceed in Mr Papadimos absence. The Committee bore in mind that it must exercise the utmost care and caution when considering whether to exercise its discretion to proceed. It has also, however, had regard to the need for fairness to both parties, as well as the public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case. The Committee noted that there has been no response from Mr Papadimos and no request for an adjournment has been made. It was of the view that an adjournment would be unlikely to lead to Mr Papadimos attending a future hearing in any event. Further, Mr Papadimos has not attended any previous GDC hearings and there has been limited engagement. The Committee determined that Mr Papadimos has deliberately absented himself and, accordingly, has voluntarily waived his right to attend. Under these circumstances, and taking into account the public interest in the expeditious disposal of this case, the Committee was of the view that it was fair for the hearing to proceed in Mr Papadimos absence. Amendment to the Charge You applied under Rule 18 for amendment to the charge by adding the words, That being a registered dentist; at the beginning; and the words and by reason of the fact stated, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct at the end. The Committee did not consider this amendment to have any prejudicial effect on Mr Papadimos, as the nature of the charge was self-evident. The amendment did not impact on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the Committee did not consider that the proposed amendment would be unfair or result in any injustice. The amendments were therefore allowed. Background Mr Papadimos first registered as a dentist in the UK on 14 November 2005. The Committee heard oral evidence from a senior caseworker of the GDC, Kevin Morgan, who stated that Mr Papadimos was removed from the Register on 24 January 2006 after he failed to pay the annual retention fee. He was re-registered on 1 February 2007 and his current period of registration is due to end on 31 December 2015. PAPADIMOS, P Professional Conduct Committee May 2015 Page -3/6-
The Committee was also informed of the Registrant s fitness to practise history. Following a complaint to the GDC, and an investigation into his practice, a panel of the Professional Conduct Committee ( PCC ) found Mr Papadimos fitness to practise impaired and, on 27 February 2012, suspended his registration for a period of 12 months. The suspension was continued for a further 12 months on 28 March 2013 following a review, and again on 28 March 2014. The suspension order was reviewed again on 19 March 2015, and an indefinite suspension was placed upon Mr Papadimos registration. Mr Papadimos applied to the Dental Council of Ireland ( DCI ) for registration to practise as a dentist in Ireland. His application form, dated 25 January 2014, was received by Jamie-Lee Ferguson of the DCI on 24 February 2014 who then learned of Mr Papadimos suspension from the GDC s Register of Dentists. On 2 April 2014, the DCI wrote to the GDC, and this led to the allegations being considered by the Committee today. Misconduct The Committee has found proved heads of charge 1(a), 1(b), 1(c); 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) (the latter three heads of charge were found proved only in as far as they relate to head of charge 1(c)); 3(a) and 3(b). The Committee first considered whether these facts amount to misconduct. The Committee referred to the Standards for Dental Professionals of May 2005 which states that, 1.3 You must be honest and act with integrity. 1.3.1 You must justify the trust that patients, the public and your colleagues place in you by always acting honestly and fairly in your dealings with them. This applies to any business or education activities in which you are involved as well as to your professional dealings. 1.3.2 You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute. 9.4 You must co-operate with any relevant formal or informal inquiry and give full and truthful information. 9.4.1 If you receive a letter from the GDC in connection with concerns about your fitness to practise, you must respond fully within the time specified in the letter. You should also seek advice from your indemnity provider or professional association. In order to make a finding of misconduct a Committee must be satisfied that a Registrant s actions fell below the appropriate standard and that that falling short must be serious. The Committee was of the view that the actions of Mr Papadimos did fall far below these key ethical guidance principles. His failure to provide full information concerning his employment history between 14 November 2005 and 31 December 2010 was a breach of his professional duty to act with honesty and integrity. It is also notable that he has refused to cooperate with a regulatory body, and this is also considered to be a serious breach of duty for a dentist. Accordingly, the Committee determined that the heads of charge found proved do amount to misconduct. Impairment Having found misconduct, the Committee next considered whether Mr Papadimos fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Committee noted that it has made a finding which relates to Mr Papadimos probity. A finding of dishonesty is a particularly grave matter for a dentist, given the trust which the public places in the profession, and the need to maintain PAPADIMOS, P Professional Conduct Committee May 2015 Page -4/6-
confidence in the same. There is nothing before the Committee which suggests that Mr Papadimos has any insight into the implications of his misconduct on the reputation of the profession. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that his misleading of the DCI was wilful and deliberate and he intentionally sought to conceal the details of his practice in the UK, which would have revealed his ongoing suspension from the GDC Register. The Certificate of Current Professional Status dated 31 January 2014, which Mr Papadimos obtained from the Directorate of Public Health in Greece (Regional Area of the Northern Aegean), and which he submitted in support of his application to the DCI, states that, The above named dentist has been practising dentistry truthfully and lawfully since 1981 and neither has this right been retained, suspended or taken away from him nor does he face any disciplinary proceedings (as translated by the British Council in Greece). This created a false impression, even if the terms of the certification are true in relation to his registration in Greece. Further, Mr Papadimos sent an email on 26 May 2014 to the DCI in which he stated that, Now, you asked me why I didn t mention my previous experience in the U.K. What are you looking from me, to burry myself? All this experience with the GDC Committee was fraud. The Committee interpreted this statement to be a clear indication that Mr Papadimos has no insight into why a finding of currently impaired fitness to practise was made by previous Committees, and demonstrated hostility towards, and a blatant disregard for, the regulatory process. Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that there is a risk of repetition. Taking all the reasons set out above into account, the Committee has determined that Mr Papadimos fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct. The Committee next considered which sanction, if any, would be proportionate in the circumstances. It first considered whether it should take no further action, and concluded that this would not maintain confidence in the regulatory process given the gravity of its findings. The Committee next considered whether it should impose a reprimand, and it concluded that it would be inappropriate to permit Mr Papadimos to return to practice where there is no evidence to reassure the Committee that his misconduct would not be repeated. Furthermore, a reprimand would be wholly insufficient where a finding of dishonesty has been made. Likewise, the Committee determined that no conditions of practice could be formed which would be workable, practicable and measurable, and in any event, Mr Papadimos lack of engagement, and his current indefinite suspension, meant that conditions would not be appropriate. The Committee next considered whether suspension would be proportionate. It noted your submission that a suspension would have no effect in the light of the fact that Mr Papadimos registration was indefinitely suspended on 19 March 2015. The Committee noted that, in addition to its finding in respect of his probity, Mr Papadimos has refused to accept that the previous GDC findings were in any way justifiable. He has also refused to provide details of his employment and professional indemnity insurance when requested to do so by the GDC. Both these, of themselves, are serious matters for a dentist as they are fundamental to ensuring patient safety in the profession. The Committee was of the view that public confidence in the regulatory process might potentially have been maintained by a suspension order if the misconduct found during this hearing had been an isolated incident. However, the misconduct represented a deliberate attempt to mislead a regulator about the PAPADIMOS, P Professional Conduct Committee May 2015 Page -5/6-
existence of ongoing regulatory sanctions within another jurisdiction by concealing relevant employment history. Against the backdrop and context of Mr Papadimos non-engagement and his unwillingness to accept his failings, the Committee has concluded that the only proportionate response, which would protect the public and meet the public interest, is erasure. Immediate Order Mr Papadimos has 28 days during which he can appeal against the order for erasure. You, on behalf of the GDC, submitted that an immediate suspension should be imposed in order to maintain public confidence in the dental profession and the regulatory process. Given that the misconduct in this case relates to Mr Papadimos probity and the need to declare and uphold proper standards within the dental profession, the Committee has determined that Mr Papadimos registration should be subjected to immediate suspension. Unless Mr Papadimos exercises his right of appeal, the erasure of his registration shall be effective after the expiration of the period of appeal. That concludes this hearing. PAPADIMOS, P Professional Conduct Committee May 2015 Page -6/6-