Dentist suspended over ‘incomplete’ work on patient’s teeth

0
11

A SCOTTISH dentist has been suspended amid allegations he took £8,000 from a patient for work he did not complete.

The General Dental Council (GDC) said Mokhothu Mokotjo, 41, left a patient with “incomplete and unsatisfactory” work.

He faced 25 charges of poor treatment, unprofessional behaviour and failing to keep records, 24 of which were found proven or partially proven.

The dentist, who was based in the Lockerbie Dental Practise, in Dumfresshire, left his practice without giving the patient any advice or plan to finish the work.

A General Dental Council committee said the patient was left 'distressed'

 

Charges from the General Dental Council said that after ‘Patient A,’ a woman who cannot be named for legal reasons, paid him £7,800 in February 2010, he failed to make appointments or complete the work.

The overall treatment was priced at £8,500.

He was supposed to fit dental crowns, but used a veneer instead without telling the patient.

He first advised the patient on November 2009, but in 2010 he was ordered to quit his practice due to unpaid debts to suppliers.

“Further charges said he blamed delays at a laboratory for the work. He had in fact failed to pay his debts to the lab.

The GDC committee’s decision said:  “There were substantial delays in the provision of treatment. This caused Patient A distress and inconvenience.

“Mr Mokotjo misled her as to the true reasons for that delay and blamed the laboratory, which was inappropriate.

“Mr Mokotjo had not completed the treatment when he left the practice on or about 30th September 2010. Some of the treatment he had carried out was unsatisfactory.

“When he left the practice, despite having 3 months notice, he failed to either complete the treatment or make any arrangements for the completion of Patient A’s treatment.”

They added: “When faced with Patient A’s complaint, Mr Mokotjo failed to respond, which the Committee found to be unprofessional.

“The Committee considers that its findings demonstrate significant and important failings in Mr Mokotjo’s responsibilities to his patient.

“They cover an extended period and the Committee is in no doubt that they amount to a serious falling short of the standards reasonably expected of a registered dentist and amount to misconduct.”

He also failed to make any clinical records of appointments he had with the patient.

Mokotjo was not present at the GDC hearing, though his lawyers had sent a letter to the GDC investigating committee.

That letter does demonstrate some insight into Mr Mokotjo’s failings,” The GDC statement said.

“However, there has been no satisfactory evidence that the areas of deficiency identified have been remedied or adequately addressed.

NO COMMENTS