Butler, Bernard Stewart v Fourth Medical Services Review Tribunal & Anor [1998] FCA 755

Butler, Bernard Stewart v Fourth Medical Services Review Tribunal & Anor [1998] FCA 755

The Tribunal did not err in finding excessive services without proof that the appellant knew or was recklessly indifferent to whether the services were not reasonably necessary, because the inquiry under s 79(1B) was administrative and objective, not criminal or quasi-criminal. The Tribunal was not shown to have imposed a reverse onus and correctly had to be positively satisfied that services were not reasonably necessary. The estoppel argument failed because the medical adviser's statement could not amount to a promise that no further investigation would be conducted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Judgment Dismissing Appeal From Decision of Medical Services Review Tribunal / Appeal to Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['medical Practitioners' 'excessive Services Under Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth)' 'medical Services Review Tribunal' 'mens Rea' 'onus of Proof in Administrative Tribunals' 'estoppel']
['administrative Law' 'health Law'] ['medical Practitioners' 'excessive Services Under Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth)' 'medical Services Review Tribunal' 'mens Rea' 'onus of Proof in Administrative Tribunals' 'estoppel']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Judgment Dismissing Appeal From Decision of Medical Services Review Tribunal / Appeal to Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was necessary to find that the appellant knew, or was recklessly unconcerned, that services were not reasonably necessary before finding that he rendered excessive services within s 79(1B) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth).' 'Whether the Minister bore an onus of proving before the Tribunal that the appellant rendered excessive services.' 'Whether the Minister was estopped from undertaking an investigation into whether the appellant had rendered excessive services.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in finding excessive services without proof that the appellant knew or was recklessly indifferent to whether the services were not reasonably necessary, because the inquiry under s 79(1B) was administrative and objective, not criminal or quasi-criminal. The Tribunal was not shown to have imposed a reverse onus and correctly had to be positively satisfied that services were not reasonably necessary. The estoppel argument failed because the medical adviser's statement could not amount to a promise that no further investigation would be conducted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellant pay the taxed costs of the respondents, including reserved costs.']