Dental Tribune United Kingdom Edition

Our MSc in Implant Dentistry offers you the hands-on clinical skills, knowledge and training to deliver high quality, safe, and predictable implant treatment into your professional practice. • Course recognised by General Dental Council • Part-time course, resulting in minimal time away from your practice • Hands-on clinical teaching sessions • One-to-one mentoring for clinical cases, provided by an experienced implant specialist • Develop a portfolio of evidence of your learning through ten clinical case assessments • Programme delivered by leading professionals, academics and researchers in implant dentistry Contact us today for further information or to apply, quoting code IMPLANT0311DT Are you a General Dental Practitioner wanting to introduce dental implants into your practice? t 024 7657 4633 W www.warwick.ac.uk/go/dentistry e dentists@warwick.ac.uk MSc in Implant Dentistry Now recruiting Litigation is still arising from the change in dental contract April 25-May 1, 201110 Feature United Kingdom Edition T he legislation providing the framework for the “new” regime for NHS dental services, which came into effect in 2006, is obscure and complex. Though the legislation is nearly five years old, litigation arising from the provisions transiting the “old” section 35 arrangements to the “new” ar- rangements continues. The recent High Court Ju- dicial Review Ex-p Ikhlaq Hus- sain and two Others – v – Secre- tary of State – v- Warwickshire PCT [2010] EWHC 3351 (see www.bailii.org) could have some financial implications for some GDS contractors. The Facts There were three claimants, with essentially, parallel cases. To simplify matters this article will simply refer to one of the claimants. During GDS Contract “base- line year”, the claimant em- ployed two qualified dentists. In calculating the claim- ant’s baseline activity and con- tract value, the activity carried out by those employed dentists during the baseline year, were ignored by the PCT. The PCT did not include the baseline activity and contract values of the two employed dentists, in the claimants GDS Contract. The Claimant disputed this and subsequently referred the matter to the NHSLA. The NHSLA decision followed in June 2008. NHSLA Decision For the purposes of this arti- cle, the essence of the claim before the adjudicator was whether the PCT was entitled, in determining the activity and contract value of the GDS Con- tract, to omit the activity and contract values attributable to the two employed dentists dur- ing the baseline year. The Claimant argued that, when applying the appropriate statutory criteria and guide- lines set out in the legislation, the activity of the two employed dentists should be taken into account in such calculations. The intention of the legisla- tion was to provide an income guarantee to dentists until the 31st March 2009, on the basis of their activity, including the activity of their employees, during the baseline period. The rationale behind the legislation was that the size and value of the practice was to be protected, to en- sure funding was in place for the number of patients serv- iced by the practice, including its employed dentists. When a particular employee left the practice ought to be able to re- place the departing employee with another dentist, so as to continue to honour the de- mands of its patients. If the departing employee effectively took “his” NHS funding with him, the em- ployer’s practice was being diverted. The intention of the legislation could not have been to encourage employed dentists to leave their employer, taking with them goodwill, which the employer had built up. High Court Review In a nutshell the High Court concluded that the adjudicator’s decision must be set aside for error of law. Where work had been undertaken during the baseline period, by em- ployee or assistant dentists, such activity and contract val- ue was potentially includable within the employer’s GDS Contract. Where to Now The High Court has referred the matter back to the NHSLA for further consideration of the appropriate activity level/con- tract value and, no doubt, the NHSLA will report the out- come in due course. Implications for General Dental Practitioners Other general dental practi- tioners may have been simi- larly affected in 2006, by their PCTs issuing GDS Contracts to employed dentists, and not including the baseline activ- ity/contract value of such employees in the principal’s GDS Contract. Can any such aggrieved contractor bring a claim at this stage or is it too late? What might the value of such a claim be? Both is- sues may be dependent on the NHSLA’s decision following the remission back to them of the Hussain case, for further consideration. For potentially affected con- tractors reading this article, it is clearly too late to refer the mat- ter to the NHSLA. There is a three year “limitation” period in disputes to the NHSLA, the time running from the date of the claim (likely to be March 2006, or at the latest 1st April 2006). GDS Contracts – The Litigation Continues! Tim Lee reviews a judical review of nGDS page 12DTà ‘In calculating the claimant’s baseline activ- ity and contract value, the activity carried out by those employed dentists during the baseline year, were ignored by the PCT’