Charge

The Director or Proceedings laid charges separately or cumulatively amounting to Professional Misconduct.  Those charges (as amended) are:

1. Dr Aladdin failed to adequately perform root canal therapy on his patient’s tooth in that he did not place a filling in a timely manner and/or failed to refer her to an endodontist in a timely manner.
2. Dr Aladdin failed to adequately perform root canal therapy in that he failed to fill one mesial root canal and inadequately filled the other mesial root canal and/or failed to refer her to an endodontist.
3. Dr Aladdin failed to adequately document his care of his patients.

Finding

The Tribunal found all three charges proven but found charge three did not necessitate a disciplinary sanction.  The Tribunal found that the first two charges justified a finding of Professional Misconduct.

Finding For Each Particular

Dr Aladdin failed to adequately perform root canal therapy on his patient’s tooth in that he did not place a filling in a timely manner and/or failed to refer her to an endodontist in a timely manner.

The Tribunal is in no doubt the Director of Proceedings has proven the first particular of the charge to the requisite standard. The evidence establishes beyond any doubt that Dr Aladdin did not undertake root canal therapy on Mrs S’s tooth 34.  By the time Dr Parkins commenced treating Mrs S’s teeth 34 and 35 on 24 February 2003 it was very clear that Dr Aladdin had not even located the root canal of tooth 34, let along carried out any of the basic steps normally associated with root canal therapy.

Doctor Aladdin’s failure to provide routine root canal therapy amounted to negligence within his scope of practice (s100(1)(a) of the Act).

The Tribunal is also of the view that Dr Aladdin needed to refer Mrs S to an endodontist by the end of March 2001.  Having recorded on 12 February 2001 that tooth 34 required root canal therapy it was incumbent on Dr Aladdin to attend to this treatment in a prompt manner. Doctor Aladdin’s failure to refer Mrs S to an endodontist constituted negligence within the meaning of s.100(1)(a) of the Act.

Doctor Aladdin’s errors were serious.  The Tribunal would not expect any registered dentist in New Zealand to commit the mistakes made by Dr Aladdin in relation to Mrs S’s tooth 34.

The Tribunal is convinced that a disciplinary sanction is justified in relation to the first particular of the charge. The Tribunal accordingly finds Dr Aladdin guilty of professional misconduct in relation to the first particular of the charge.

Dr Aladdin failed to adequately perform root canal therapy in that he failed to fill one mesial root canal inadequately filled the other mesial root canal and/or failed to refer her to an endodontist

The Tribunal is completely satisfied Dr Aladdin did not carry out adequate root canal therapy on Mrs S’s tooth 36.  The evidence of Dr Parkins clearly establishes that when he commenced treating Mrs S’s tooth 36 on 17 February 2002 the mesiolingual canal in tooth 36 had not been treated.  Two other canals had been inadequately filled with gutta percha and another unknown substance.

Doctor Aladdin’s failure to carry out standard root canal therapy on tooth 36 constituted a serious departure from professional standards. It was incumbent upon him to refer Mrs S to an endodontist.

Doctor Aladdin’s errors in mis-managing tooth 36 were very serious and constituted a significant departure from the standards normally expected of a New Zealand registered dentist.  Doctor Aladdin’s mistakes in relation to tooth 36 constituted negligence within the meaning of s.100(1)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal is satisfied that a disciplinary finding is warranted in relation to the second particular of the charge. Accordingly the Tribunal finds Dr Aladdin guilty of professional misconduct in relation to the second particular of the charge.

Dr Aladdin failed to adequately document his care of his patients

The Tribunal agrees that Dr Aladdin’s notes were inadequate.  Doctor Aladdin used confusing and inappropriate terminology and failed to fully and adequately explain the procedures and materials he used when treating Mrs S.   Of particular concern was Dr Aladdin’s decision to use a solvent to clear the canal of tooth 34.  A New Zealand dentist, reading Dr Aladdin’s notes, would be very bewildered by that comment and is unlikely to be able to understand what treatment Dr Aladdin had actually provided.

Whilst the Tribunal is satisfied Dr Aladdin’s notes fall well below the standard expected of a dentist in New Zealand, the Tribunal does not believe that a disciplinary sanction is required in relation to this particular charge.  The Tribunal believes that the public’s interest, and the interests of the profession will be adequately addressed by the Tribunal’s findings in relation to the first two particulars of the charge, and its cumulative findings.

Cumulative Finding

The Tribunal finds that when viewed cumulatively, the adverse findings made against Dr Aladdin in relation to all three particulars of the charge constitute professional misconduct and constitute negligence within the meaning of s.100(1)(a) of the Act.  The established particulars of the charge, when viewed cumulatively justify a finding of professional misconduct in order to protect the public and maintain professional standards.  However, in order to avoid any suggestions of “double punishment” the Tribunal will not impose any penalty in relation to its findings in relation to the cumulative charge.

Penalty

The Tribunal orders Dr Aladdin’s registration as a dentist be cancelled with effect from 1 September 2005.  This order is made pursuant to s.101(1)(a) of the Act.  The Tribunal also directs that before he reapplies for registration Dr Aladdin must satisfy the Dental Council of New Zealand that he has been appropriately re-trained as a dentist to a level of competency acceptable to the Dental Council of New Zealand.  Dr Aladdin’s retaining should preferably be undertaken at the University of Otago.  This condition is imposed pursuant to s.102(2)(a) of the Act.

Because the Tribunal has cancelled Dr Aladdin’s registration, and because the Tribunal does not know what resources Dr Aladdin has, it has assumed that Dr Aladdin is unlikely to be able to pay any significant award of costs.  Accordingly the Tribunal has again 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 $2,500 towards the costs of the Director of Proceedings and $2,500 towards the costs of the Tribunal (total $5,000).