Charge Detail Summary

Return
File Number: Den16/368P
Practitioner: David Edwin Lyall Zimmerman


Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

03/04/2017

03/04/2017


Hearing Town/City: Auckland

Hearing Location:

Charge Characteristics:

Practising while suspended from practising (Established)


Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Patients and their relatives granted permanent suppression of name and identifying features.

888Den16368P.pdf


Appeal Order:


Decision:

Full Decision 888Den16368P.pdf


Appeal Decision:


Precis of Decision:

Charge
On 3 to 6 April 2017 the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal considered a charge of professional misconduct laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Dental Council of New Zealand (DCNZ) against Dr David Lyall Zimmerman, registered Dentist (the Dentist).

The charge alleged that the Dentist practised dentistry when he knew or ought to have known that he was suspended from practice.  There were five particulars of the charge relating to different dates and periods and different allegations of alleged services in breach of the suspension order relating to 5 individual patients.

The Dentist represented himself and defended the charge.

Background

By letter of 11 July 2014 the DCNZ advised the Dentist that it had made an interim order suspending the Dentist's practice because of fundamental issues concerning his competence across his practice.  The Dentist was advised that the order was to take effect on Thursday 17 July 2014 and he was advised he could not practice after the close of business on Wednesday 16 July 2014.  The order also included a definition of the practice of dentistry.

The Dentist's position at the hearing was that he thought the suspension was only a suspension from a restricted activity as described in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (Restricted Activities) Order 2005 and the work he was undertaking fell outside of this.

Finding

The Tribunal did not accept the Dentist's position and stated that the Dentist could not have been under any misapprehension about the matter from the 11 July 2014 letter and the Notice of Suspension which was enclosed.

The Tribunal found that the charge and all 5 particulars, apart from two sub-particulars of particular 3, were established and warranted disciplinary sanction.

Penalty

The Tribunal cancelled the Dentist's registration and ordered that he be required to complete a course of education or training as determined by the DCNZ before he may apply for re-registration.  The Dentist was censured and ordered to pay a contribution towards the costs of the Tribunal and the PCC.

The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.