Many health practitioners assume that their principal responsibility is to provide professional and competent advice and treatment to their patients and that only deviations from this duty will attract the censure of the regulator. However, a practice of delayed claiming from private health insurers from which the practice earned less than $9,000 saw a dental practitioner reprimanded and suspended for a period of four months.
The dentist was found to have offered free first consultations to patients without private health insurance. The dentist encouraged these patients to take up private health insurance and would then submit a claim for payment, dishonestly misrepresenting the date on which the service had been provided. Whilst the financial benefits of this practice were modest, the conduct was found by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) to constitute professional misconduct because it contravened the applicable professional Code of Conduct which requires registered dental practitioners to act honestly and to demonstrate professional values including acting ethically and in a trustworthy manner.
The Tribunal also made a number of comments in the decision which serve as salient reminders for all health practitioners:
- In assessing the extent of the dentist’s dishonesty, it became apparent that she initially sought to minimise the extent of admitted misconduct in her early dealings with the Board. This drew criticism and the Tribunal reiterated that the right and proper course for a practitioner confronted with allegations of misconduct is to acknowledge the truth of the factual allegations in full and not seek to conceal or minimise any wrongfulness by denying relevant facts that the practitioner knows to be true.
- The Board also alleged that the dentist provided dental services to two persons with whom she had a close personal and intimate or family relationship. Whilst the Tribunal did not consider these allegations in detail, they were nonetheless taken into account in their considerations about penalty. Practitioners are reminded that the Code of Conduct requires practitioners to recognise the potential conflicts, risks, and complexities of providing care to those in a close personal relationship and to maintain professional boundaries.
The decision in Dental Board of Australia v Da Silva [2023] SACT 15 can be read here.
