Health Care Complaints Commission v DAC [2017] NSWCATOD 98

Health Care Complaints Commission v DAC [2017] NSWCATOD 98

DAC's illicit use of GHB, cocaine and ecstasy, failure to report or adequately address Dr A's known drug use and impairment, inappropriate prescribing to a close colleague despite lack of relevant expertise and his own impairment, and misleading evidence to statutory inquiries each constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal rejected DAC's explanations that he did not appreciate Dr A was using GHB at work and that his own impairment excused the conduct. Considered cumulatively, the conduct was a deliberate departure from accepted standards and sufficiently serious to justify suspension, amounting to professional misconduct under s 139E of the National Law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings Against a Medical Practitioner / Principal Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
The Tribunal found DAC guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Complaints 1 to 5 and professional misconduct in respect of Complaint 6, suspended him for three months, imposed post-suspension registration conditions, ordered costs, and made permanent non-publication orders.
Legal Topics
['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'medical Practitioner Drug Use' 'failure to Report Impaired Colleague' 'inappropriate Prescribing' 'misleading Statutory Inquiry' 'suspension and Conditions on Registration' 'non Publication Orders' 'costs']
['health Practitioner Regulation' 'professional Discipline' 'administrative Law'] ['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'medical Practitioner Drug Use' 'failure to Report Impaired Colleague' 'inappropriate Prescribing' 'misleading Statutory Inquiry' 'suspension and Conditions on Registration' 'non Publication Orders' 'costs']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings Against a Medical Practitioner / Principal Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Respondent's illicit drug use while practising as a neurosurgeon constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct." "Whether the Respondent's use of illicit drugs with Dr A and failure to encourage treatment or notify superiors or authorities constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct." 'Whether the Respondent knew or ought to have known that Dr A used GHB at work and failed to notify appropriate persons or authorities.' 'Whether prescribing or supplying Temazepam, Propranolol and Pregabalin to Dr A was inappropriate professional conduct.' 'Whether statements made to the Medical Council of NSW and the Health Care Complaints Commission were false or misleading or reckless as to truth.' 'Whether the established instances of unsatisfactory professional conduct, individually or cumulatively, amounted to professional misconduct justifying suspension or cancellation.' 'What disciplinary orders, conditions, costs orders and non-publication orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

DAC's illicit use of GHB, cocaine and ecstasy, failure to report or adequately address Dr A's known drug use and impairment, inappropriate prescribing to a close colleague despite lack of relevant expertise and his own impairment, and misleading evidence to statutory inquiries each constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal rejected DAC's explanations that he did not appreciate Dr A was using GHB at work and that his own impairment excused the conduct. Considered cumulatively, the conduct was a deliberate departure from accepted standards and sufficiently serious to justify suspension, amounting to professional misconduct under s 139E of the National Law.

Court Disposition

The Tribunal found DAC guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Complaints 1 to 5 and professional misconduct in respect of Complaint 6, suspended him for three months, imposed post-suspension registration conditions, ordered costs, and made permanent non-publication orders.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Complaints 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.' 'The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in respect of Complaint 6.' 'The Respondent is suspended for a period of 3 months commencing from the date of delivery of the decision of the Tribunal.'...