Ram Chopra

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted allegations of unnecessary dental services, excessive or unreasonable fees, recordkeeping deficiencies, and improper insurance claims affecting multiple patients over many years.

The panel accepted an agreed statement of facts and found professional misconduct under the governing health-professions legislation and regulations.

On penalty, the panel raised concerns about the member’s prior discipline history, the remediation evidence, and the proposed suspension length, but ultimately applied the joint-submission standard from Anthony-Cook and accepted the proposed sanction.

The order imposed a reprimand, a two-month suspension, education in recordkeeping and billing, practice monitoring, suspension-related restrictions, and $5,000 in costs.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from diagnosing and providing unnecessary restorative treatment, failing to use appropriate radiographic technique, prescribing antibiotics without adequate diagnostic foundation, failing to identify substandard restorations performed under supervision, and deficient recordkeeping.

The panel found the admissions voluntary, informed and unequivocal, and was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the misconduct was established.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, emphasizing public protection, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

A one-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice monitoring, reprimand, and $3,000 in costs were ordered.

College discipline proceeding arising from a member's treatment of a patient involving multiple tooth extractions, temporomandibular joint-related care, inadequate recordkeeping, and failure to obtain informed consent.

The member admitted professional misconduct allegations under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the dentistry misconduct regulation, including unjustified extractions, failure to refer to specialists earlier, deficient charting, and disgraceful or unprofessional conduct.

The panel found the admissions voluntary and unequivocal, accepted the agreed facts, and held that the evidence substantiated the misconduct.

The panel accepted an amended joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, educational courses, practice restrictions, monitoring, publication on the register, and $2,500 in costs.