Jersey oral surgeon reprimanded by dental watchdog

Wednesday 18 May 2022

A Jersey oral surgeon has been issued with a year-long reprimand by the General Dental Council.

At a hearing in February, the GDC’s Professional Conduct Committee found that Michael Belligoi’s fitness to practise was impaired.

The issue that brought the surgeon before the committee related to the treatment of a single patient between 2014 and 2018. He was charged with failing to provide an adequate standard of care to that individual.

A number of failings were admitted by Mr Belligoi, including performing procedures without clinical justification, failing to obtain consent before treatment, and not keeping adequate records in respect to the patient.

In its recently published ruling, the committee said that the facts that it had found proved amounted to misconduct. 

It said: “The committee considers that your acts and omissions fell far short of the standards reasonably expected of a general dental practitioner. 

“The committee noted that the expert witnesses in this case agreed that there were significant deficiencies in your care of ‘Patient A’. 

“The committee notes the poor outcome of the treatment that you provided to Patient A, and it considers that your care and treatment of the patient caused harm to her. 

“The committee is particularly concerned by your failure to obtain the patient’s informed consent for treatment on account of your failure to explain to her that the combined treatment that you proposed to provide carried a risk of further root resorption. 

“The committee notes that you do not seek to persuade the committee that the facts that it has found proven do not amount to misconduct. The committee finds that your acts and omissions were serious, and that they amount to misconduct.”

However, the committee went on to say that it judged that the misconduct in this case was a one-off.

Addressing Mr Belligoi, it said: “There is no evidence to suggest that you now pose a risk to patients, and the committee accepts that a repetition of your misconduct is highly unlikely. 

“You have demonstrated your remorse for, your insight into, and your remediation of, your misconduct. The matters giving rise to these proceedings relate to a single patient and a single course of treatment. You have no fitness-to-practise history, and you have taken considerable steps to remediate your misconduct.

“In the circumstances, the committee considers that the issuing of a reprimand is sufficient to mark the seriousness of the matters identified. 

“A reprimand meets the public interest considerations of trust and confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper professional standards engaged by this case. 

“The committee is satisfied that a reasonable and informed observer would note the committee’s findings of facts, misconduct and impairment, and would be satisfied that the sanction of a reprimand represents a suitable disposal of this case.

“As the committee has determined that a reprimand is the appropriate and proportionate sanction, and as such a sanction is imposed solely on public interest grounds, the committee considers that a higher sanction of conditions would be disproportionate and unsuited to the public interest purposes that the committee has identified.

“The committee has therefore decided, and now directs, that a reprimand be recorded against your name in the register. 

“The fact of this reprimand, and a copy of this determination, will appear alongside your name in the register for a period of 12 months. 

“The reprimand forms part of your fitness to practise history, and is disclosable to prospective employers and prospective registrars in other jurisdictions.”