Health Care Complaints Commission v Cheng (No 2) [2017] NSWCATOD 93

Decision date: 16 June 2017
“Medical practitioner – misconduct involved inappropriate examination of female patients for sexual gratification – held unfit to practice medicine for an indefinite period – cancellation of registration – non-review period of 7 years-costs order made.”
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.

The Health Ombudsman v Jamieson [2017] QCAT 172

Decision date: 5 June 2017
“Where respondent practitioner stole three boxes of antibiotics from her place of employment – where the practitioner used the antibiotics to treat her son’s recurrent medical condition – where the respondent was convicted of 1 count of stealing as a servant in the Magistrates Court in relation to that conduct – where no conviction recorded in respect of that charge – where respondent failed to notify the National Board of that charge – where respondent made a false declaration when renewing her registration in respect of that charge – where respondent believed she did not need to disclose the charge as no conviction was recorded – whether the practitioner engaged in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct – whether reprimand is an appropriate sanction – whether an order as to costs should be made.”
Find decision here.

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.


Delivered: 24 March 2017
“On about 30 November 2016, the Board notified the applicant that it had decided under s 178 and s 179 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to caution him. The Board gave brief reasons for its action, finding certain failings in the applicant’s treatment of a named patient, including that he should have communicated risks and likely success or failure rates of any proposed treatment more clearly, should have conducted a more through ‘consenting process’, and that his clinical records were inadequate. It stated his professional performance ‘is or may be unsatisfactory’.”
Find case here.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Scott (Review and Regulation)

Date of order: 8 March 2017
“Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 – ss 5 & 196 – suicide of in-patient in psychiatric inpatient service in context of failure by registered nurse to conduct 30 minutely observations or ensure such were conducted by other persons – failure by registered nurse to appropriately comply with supervision condition on registration.”
Find case here.

Hunter v Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2017] NTCAT 109 

Decision date: 16 February 2017
“The performance assessment report was critical of the Applicant’s medical knowledge, and in July 2016 the Respondent imposed conditions on his registration. The conditions included that the Applicant to always work with another registered nurse, to not work out of usual hours, to have at least 6 sessions of mentoring, and to undertake a further performance assessment at the end of this mentoring.The Appellant objected to these conditions and has appealed the Board’s decision.”
Find decision here.