A Shetland-based dentist who preyed on vulnerable patients by carrying out excessive and unnecessary treatment has been struck off the register.
Michael Rylko has been “erased with immediate suspension” after a professional conduct committee hearing of the General Dental Council (GDC) held this week, found he had acted improperly on 89 occasions.
Rylko, who failed to turn up at hearing, is said to have acted dishonestly towards 11 patients between June 3, 2015 and October 23, 2019.
The GDC found the dentist even lied about having received an award that was displayed in his practice window and provided fake patient records when concerns were raised about his conduct.
Dental nurse raised concerns
A report into the hearing, held remotely on various dates in May, said it was a dental nurse who raised initial concerns and provided records to the GDC for patients she had concerns about.
She also raised an issue concerning a certificate that praised Rylko as “best performing dentist”.
When the GDC got the clinical records from the practice, they were different to the ones provided by the dental nurse.
It was then that concerns were raised about another seven patients in Shetland.
“The concerns included Rylko’s alleged undertaking of disproportionate, unnecessary, and overly technical treatment,” the report said.
The GDC believed Rylko was acting with a financial motive in the treatment of the patients, as opposed to providing dental treatment that was in the best interests of the patients, and found that he was “therefore dishonest”.
It was noted that many of the patients that Rylko preyed on were vulnerable adults.
A witness called to give evidence about a disputed dentistry award said: “I can confirm we have never given Rylko a dentistry or non-dentistry award.”
The committee said the certificate gave the impression that he was better or more qualified than he was.
Catalogue of complaints
Of the 11 patients, it was found Rylko failed to carry-out sufficient diagnostic assessment in relation to nine of the patients, failed to maintain adequate records in relation to three of the patients.
He failed to undertake treatment planning and investigation in relation to the treatment of four of the patients, failed to provide an adequate standard of care and treatment to 10 of the patients.
He had failed to assess, treat and monitor three of the patients and failed to obtain fully informed consent from eight of the patients.
Rylko was found to have recommended to five patients treatment that was not in their best interests.
The report said he acted in a premeditated way.
It stated: “The committee found that in the instances in question, Rylko chose to provide and recommend treatment that was financially advantageous, compared with other options, and with little or no consideration as to whether the treatment was suitable or appropriate to the patients.”
The committee found that after it had requested reports from the dentist, they had been falsified before being provided to the GDC.
A lawyer advising the GDC found that there were 89 instances where patients had been put at risk of harm.
The report continued: “The committee found that he [acted] purely to make money.”
The committee considered this to be “significantly serious”.
The committee were told that Rylko no longer lived in the UK.
Rylko has the right of appeal.
In full: Charges against Michael Rylko
- Between on or about June 3, 2015 and October 23, 2019 you were practising at
Practice 1 and provided care and treatment to the patients. - You failed to carry-out sufficient diagnostic assessment and/or maintain
adequate records. - You failed to maintain adequate records.
- You failed to undertake sufficient treatment planning and/or investigation.
- You failed to provide an adequate standard of care and/or treatment.
- You failed to assess, treat and/or monitor patients.
- You failed to obtain patients’ fully informed consent in that you did not discuss
the risks, benefits and/or alternative treatments. - You did not act in your patients’ best interests in respect of: A – your decision to provide Patient E with Invisalign. B – your decision not to suggest alternative treatments to Patient F. C – your decision to fit Patient G with eleven crowns.D- your recommendation, on June 5 and July 3, 2019, for Patient H to have
orthodontic treatment (Invisalign) when this was not required. E – your decision to fit a large bridge over Patient I’s teeth which had a poor long-term prognosis. - Your conduct in respect of 8 was: A – misleading; and/or B – dishonest in that it was financially motivated.
- Following a request from the General Dental Council (‘the Council’) to provide
the records of Patients A, B, C and/or D, you altered the contemporaneous
patient records and provided amended records to the council. - Your conduct in respect of 10, above, was: A – Misleading; and/or B – Dishonest, in that you knew that the Council sought to obtain records that
were contemporaneous to the appointments, and you amended the
records without informing the council. - From at least May 22, 2019 to November 22, 2019, you displayed a sticker in your practice window which stated ‘Dentistry Awards 2016, Best Performing Dentist, Michael Rylko, Winner issued by Butterfly Dental Laboratory’ in circumstances whereby: A – you had not received such a sticker from the Butterfly Dental Laboratory; and/or B – you had not received such an award from the Butterfly Dental Laboratory.
- Your conduct in respect of 12 was: A -Misleading; B – Lacking in integrity, as you sought to elevate your professional standing without actually achieving an award; C- Dishonest, in that you knew that you had not received such an award from the Butterfly Dental Laboratory.
