Charge
The Director of Proceeding laid charges separately or cumulatively amounting to professional misconduct. Those charges (as amended) are:
1. Mounted a crown on tooth 21 in a manner which would fail to ensure retnention of the crown.
2. Failed to adequately treat his patient's tooth 21 in that he fitted a post that was:
a. Too short; and/or
b. Overly large in diameter; and/or
c. Off centre in the root canal; and/or
d. Fabricated with a core that was too short for effective retention of the crown.
3. Failure to adequately document care of his patient.
Finding
The Tribunal was satisfied that all three charges were proven to the requisite standard and that all three charges amounted to professional misconduct.
Finding For Each Charge
Mounted a crown on tooth 21 in a manner which would fail to ensure retention of the crown.
The Tribunal is very satisfied the Director of Proceedings has proven the first particular of the charge to the requisite standard.
Dr ALADDIN failed to construct a post in Mr R’s tooth 21 during the period 25 September 2001 to 19 March 2003 and the failure to construct a post meant the crown was not adequately supported.
His actions fell well below the standards expected of a New Zealand dentist. The Tribunal is also in no doubt Dr ALADDIN’s errors constituted negligence within the meaning of s.100(1)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal has concluded Dr ALADDIN’s conduct during this period was so serious and inexcusable that a disciplinary sanction is warranted in order to protect the public, maintain professional standards, and to punish Dr ALADDIN. This conclusion is based on the Tribunal’s concern that Dr ALADDIN should have appreciated very early on during his treatment of Mr R that the crown was not properly supported.
It follows that Dr ALADDIN’s acts and omissions in relation to the first particular of the charge constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of s.101(1)(a) of the Act.
Failed to adequately treat his patient’s tooth 21 in that he fitted a post that was:
- Too short; and/or
- Overly large in diameter; and/or
- Off centre in the root canal; and/or
Fabricated with a core that was too short for effective retention of the crown.
The Director of Proceedings has proven this particular of the charge to the requisite standard.
The evidence clearly established that the post inserted by Dr ALADDIN in March 2003 was:
- Too short; and
- Too broad in diameter; and
- Seriously off the centre of the root canal; and
- Fabricated with a core that was too short.
The combined effect of these errors was that the crown could not be effectively retained. Furthermore the integrity of the remaining tooth structure was seriously compromised by Dr ALADDIN’s poor techniques.
The Tribunal is in no doubt that Dr ALADDIN’s errors in treating Mr R’s tooth in March 2003 constituted negligence within the meaning of s100(1)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal also believes that Dr ALADDIN’s failure to properly place a post in Mr R’s tooth 21 requires a disciplinary finding. Doctor ALADDIN’s failure to correctly position the post he put in place was a failure to adhere to the most basic standards of dentistry. His errors were serious and inexcusable.
The Tribunal accordingly concludes Dr ALADDIN’s errors as established in relation to the second particular of the charge constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of s.100(1)(a) of the Act.
Failure to adequately document care of his patient.
The Tribunal has examined Dr ALADDIN’s records and has concluded they are seriously deficient. Doctor ALADDIN has used confusing terminology. His records are incomplete and it is not possible to adequately understand what techniques and materials Dr ALADDIN has employed when treating Mr R.
The Tribunal stresses the importance for all dentists to maintain records that are complete and capable of being understood. Notes should be written in a way that would ensure another dentist could easily understand what treatment has been provided.
Doctor’s ALADDIN’s notes fell well below the standard expected of a New Zealand dentist and as such constituted negligence within the meaning of s.100(1)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal also believes Dr ALADDIN’s notes were so seriously deficient that a disciplinary finding is required in relation to the third particular of the charge in order to enforce professional standards. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that, in relation to the third particular of the charge Dr ALADDIN’s errors constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of s.100(1)(a) of the Act.
Cumulative Charge
The Tribunal is in no doubt that when the three particulars of the charge are viewed cumulatively, the established acts and omissions constitute serious negligence and would merit a finding of professional misconduct. However, as the Tribunal has found each particular of the charge constitutes professional misconduct it is not necessary or appropriate to make any finding in relation to the cumulative charge.
Penalty
The Tribunal orders Dr ALADDIN’s registration as a dentist be cancelled. This order will not take effect until 1 September 2005 so as to provide Dr ALADDIN with a little time to organise his affairs. This order is made pursuant to s.101(91)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal also directs that before he applies for registration Dr ALADDIN must satisfy the Dental Council of New Zealand that he has been appropriately re-trained as a dentist, preferably at the University of Otago. This condition is imposed pursuant to s.102(2)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal does not know what ability Dr ALADDIN has to meet an award of costs. Because the Tribunal has cancelled Dr ALADDIN’s registration it believes it unlikely he will have employment in New Zealand so as to be able to pay any significant award of costs. Accordingly the Tribunal has decided to impose a nominal order for costs against Dr ALADDIN pursuant to s.101(f) of the Act. Doctor ALADDIN will be required to pay just $2,500 towards the costs of the Director of Proceedings and $2,500 towards the costs of the Tribunal (total $5,000).