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.

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.

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.