NG v Chinese Medicine Board of Australia [2017] NSWCATOD 36

Decision date: 15 March 2017
“PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – Where health practitioner has appealed against conditions placed on her registration – where the Chinese Medical Board concedes an error in imposing conditions and has caused removal of conditions from the Register maintained by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency –
Whether appeal is frivolous or vexatious or misconceived or lacking in substance – Consideration of objects of Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law – whether dismissal of appeal would deny appellant procedural fairness. Where continuation of appeal will not result in a practical outcome.”
Find case here.

Diabetologist and former journal editor faces charges of data fabrication

BMJ 2017; 356: j1348
Author: Clare Dyer
“At a four week hearing of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service that opened on 13 March, the GMC accuses Grant of a catalogue of research misconduct, including forging the signatures of coauthors, listing doctors who had not significantly contributed to papers as coauthors, and fabricating data.”
Find article here.

Tribunal reprimands pharmacist for unprofessional conduct

AHPRA, 2 March 2017
“The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) has reprimanded pharmacist Mr Hayden Swan and imposed conditions on his registration after finding he engaged in unprofessional conduct by inappropriately dispensing Sustanon 250 (testosterone) to a patient.”
Find further details here.

Medical Board of Australia v GFO (Review and Regulation)

Date of order: 28 February 2017
“GFO engaged in unprofessional conduct, including professional misconduct, within the meaning of the Medical Practice Act in that he had in a personal and sexual relationship with Ms SR, a patient he had been treating prior to commencing the relationship.”
Find order here.

Medical Board of Australia v Alkazali (Review and Regulation)

Date of order: 28 February 2017
“The Tribunal has previously determined that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct involving serious breaches of the ‘Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia’ and the Medical Board of Australia’s ‘Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for doctors’, including a serious failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries; sexualised behaviour; improper advice to a patient; and misleading and deceptive communications with the Medical Board of Australia (Board).”
Find order here.

Professor David Morris – Unsatisfactory professional conduct

HCCC, 23 February 2017
“The Health Care Complaints Commission brought a complaint against Professor David Morris, a colorectal surgeon, concerning his decision to permit an overseas based doctor who was not registered in Australia, to operate on a patient on 6 November 2014 at St George Public Hospital as part of a lengthy peritonectomy procedure.”
Find further information here.

Tribunal reprimands medical researcher for professional misconduct

Medical Board of Australia, 22 February 2017
“The Medical Board of Australia referred Mr Nicholas Melhuish to the tribunal on the grounds that his multiple breaches of the Privacy Act 1988 and the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997 (ACT) as well as breaches of Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia (the Code of Conduct), the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research 2007 (the NHMRC Code) and the ACT Health Research Practice Policy amounted to professional misconduct.”
Find further information here.


Decision delivered: 23 February 2017
“The Medical Board’s allegations pertained to Dr Singh’s general practice which included failing to keep proper records, prescribing drugs or other treatments when there was no therapeutic basis and prescribing some drugs and treatments which had potential adverse effects.The Medical Board of Australia also made the same allegations in relation to Dr Singh’s treatment of two specific patients.”
Find decision here.