Health Care Complaints Commission v Menz [2017] NSWCATOD 141

Decision date: 29 September 2017
“PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – health practitioner – whether practitioner not a suitable person to hold registration. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS –hearing complaint in absence of respondent constitutes a denial of procedural fairness.”
Find decision here.

Hampshire v Medical Council of NSW [2017] NSWCATOD 140

Decision date: 29 September 2017
“On 4 August 2017 delegates of the respondent Medical Council of NSW determined to suspend the registration of the applicant Dr Robert Hampshire as a medical practitioner pursuant to the provisions of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (“the National Law”). Written reasons for their decision were issued by the delegates on 25 August 2017. On 16 August 2017 the applicant instituted appeal proceedings from the decision to suspend his registration, and on the same day filed an application for a stay of the order of suspension. It is that stay application which is the subject of these reasons for decision.”
Find article here.

Zaphir v Health Ombudsman [2017] QCAT 193

Decision date: 16 June 2017
“PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – HEALTH PRACTITIONERS REGULATION NATIONAL LAW GENERALLY – where the practitioner was an unregistered health practitioner – where the Health Ombudsman took immediate action by issuing an interim prohibition order in relation to the practitioner under s 68 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) – where the interim prohibition order prohibited the practitioner from any employment (paid or otherwise) in a clinical or non-clinical capacity which relates to the provision of any health service – whether the Tribunal believes the action is necessary to protect public health or safety.”
Find decision here.

Medical Board of Australia v Adams (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 796

Decision date: 14 June 2017
“Misconduct of medical practitioner – forging signature to patient consent forms – weight of agreed statement of facts and determinations – agreed determination found inadequate – practitioner suspended from practice.”
Find decision here.

Seymour v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2017] VCAT 901

Decision date: 21 June 2017
“Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Vic) 2009 ss 3, 178, 202 (1); positive urine and hair sample drug test results; formation of a reasonable belief that the manner in which a nurse practises is or may be unsatisfactory; whether necessary to impose conditions on practise. Group 1 urine and hair testing substituted for Group 2 testing.”
Find decision here.

Florida Cuts Telemedicine Out of New Medical Marijuana Law

mHealthIntelligence, 15 June 2017
Source: mHealthIntelligence
“Florida lawmakers have passed legislation that prevents doctors from using telemedicine to issue a prescription for medical marijuana. The rule requires that Sunshine State doctors who want to issue a medical marijuana prescription must first “(conduct) a physical examination while physically present in the same room as the patient and a full assessment of the medical history of the patient.” With some 29 states and Washington D.C. allowing medical marijuana, state officials are looking to control how the drug is prescribed and distributed, including through telehealth.”
Find article here.

The Health Ombudsman v Riek [2017] QCAT 173

Decision date: 5 June 2017
“Where respondent practitioner stole schedule 8 medication from his employer – where the respondent was convicted of 1 count of stealing as a servant in the Magistrates Court in relation to that conduct – where respondent earlier diagnosed with ADD, major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder – where evidence and submissions dealt with whether respondent impaired in practising due to suffering from a substance abuse disorder – where impairment due to substance abuse disorder not an element of any charges brought by Health Ombudsman – whether the practitioner engaged in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct – whether Tribunal should have regard to impairment due to substance abuse disorder – whether reprimand, suspension or disqualification an appropriate sanction – whether an order as to costs should be made.”
Find decision here.