Bahramy v Medical Council of New South Wales [2017] NSWCATOD 146

Decision date: 19 October 2017
“ADMINISTRATIVE LAW -Application for reregistration of medical practitioner following deregistration in 2008 for professional misconduct -Whether practitioner has demonstrated he is a fit and proper person to be reinstated to the register -Applicant lacking insight-Application dismissed.”
Find decision here.

SANDY V WOMENS HEALTH NETWORK [2017] SADC 102

Decision date: 18 September 2017
‘Administrative law – freedom of information – review of decisions – other states and territories – Administrative law – freedom of information – right of access – generally – Administrative law – freedom of information – exempt documents – documents affecting enforcement or administration of the law.’
Find decision here.

How State Right-To-Try Laws Create False Expectations

Health Affairs Blog, 22 May 2015
Authors: D Farber, P Noronha, A Caplan, A Bateman-House
“Over the past year, state Right-to-Try (RTT) laws that claim to enable terminally ill patients to access unapproved, experimental drugs, biologics, and devices have swept the nation. As of early May, seventeen states have enacted RTT laws (most recently, Florida and Minnesota), and bills creating such laws are currently pending in over twenty state legislatures.”
Find article here.

Traditional Virtues Trump Ethics Codes

Huffington Post, 22 October 2014
Author: Brad Reid
“It is too easy to equate ethics codes with law so that if a contemplated action is not contrary to the code or law, it is morally acceptable. If it is legal, then it is morally acceptable.this position is too easy and requires too little thought.”
Find article here.

World getting ‘super-aged’ at scary speed

CNN, 21 August 2014
Author: Alanna Petroff
“By 2020, 13 countries will be “super-aged” – with more than 20% of the population over 65 – according to a report by Moody’s Investor Service. That number will rise to 34 nations by 2030. Only three qualify now: Germany, Italy and Japan.”
Find article here.

AYT v Sydney Local Health District [2014] NSWCATAD 29 (19 March 2014)

New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division 19 March 2014

Before: S Higgins, Principal Member

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction
1. The applicant seeks review of conduct, by the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), she asserts to have been a breach of a number of health privacy principles (HPPs), set out in the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (HRIP Act), in regard to her personal health information. The alleged breaches are said to have arisen in the course of RPAH’s response to a subpoena, issued by the District Court, in May 2012. The subpoena was issued, at the request of the defendant to proceedings instituted by the applicant in that Court.
2. It is the contention of the applicant that, RPAH produced documents, containing her health information, which were irrelevant, or did not fall within, the terms of the subpoena. Of concern to the applicant were the production of her medical records from the Camperdown Aged Chronic Care and Rehabilitation Service (AC&R Clinic). It is this conduct, which the applicant alleges to amount to a contravention, by RPAH, of a number of HPPs in regard to her health information. The applicant went on to contend that as a result of the alleged contraventions her solicitor advised her that she had no alternative but to settle her occupiers liability claim before the District Court. In settling her claim, the applicant said she was forced to agree to a settlement amount that was considerably less than what she would otherwise have been entitled to.
3. RPAH and the AC&R Clinic are facilities belonging to the Sydney Local Health District (the respondent). The AC&R Clinic is also located within the grounds of RPAH…”

Find decision here.

Dezfouli v Pulley [2014] NSWCATAD 1 (17 January 2014)

New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division 17 January 2014

Before: Magistrate N Hennessy

REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction

1. Mr Dezfouli is an Iranian man who is a patient at the Forensic Hospital. He complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that his treating psychiatrist, Dr Pulley, had victimised him for lodging a complaint of race discrimination against him. Mr Dezfouli says that after he complained of race discrimination Dr Pulley proposed to change his medication to make him more manageable and less litigious.
2. The President declined the complaint as “lacking in substance” and Mr Dezfouli has elected to have it referred to the Tribunal. Before his complaint can go ahead, the Tribunal must give its permission or ‘leave’. The test when exercising its discretion is whether it is fair and just in all the circumstances to grant leave… I have decided to grant leave for Mr Dezfouli’s complaint to go ahead…”

Find decision here.

Lawsuit challenges Arizona’s limits on use of abortion drug

Reuters, By David Schwartz, March 5, 2014

“Two women’s healthcare providers have filed a federal lawsuit in Arizona to block new regulations that would limit the use of the most popular abortion-inducing drug in the state, officials disclosed on Wednesday. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix on behalf of Planned Parenthood Arizona and health center Tucson Women’s Center, said the rules, due to go into effect on April 1, are unconstitutional and would severely hamper a woman’s right to a non-surgical abortion.”

Find article here.