Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Baez [2014] NSWCATOD 3

Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Baez [2014] NSWCATOD 3

The Tribunal found that complaints against Dr Baez regarding Patients A, C, and D were proved to the requisite civil standard, constituting professional misconduct, relying on the credibility of complainant witnesses, supporting contemporaneous complaints, admissions by Dr Baez, and a finding that denial of key facts by Dr Baez was a lie motivated by consciousness of guilt. The complaint regarding Patient B was not proved, primarily due to conflicting and uncorroborated evidence and failure to satisfy the Briginshaw standard.

Parties
Complainant: Health Care Complaints Commission; Respondent: Dr Fabian Baez
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Occupational/disciplinary Proceedings / Merits Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Complaints regarding Patients A, C, and D proved; complaint regarding Patient B not proved.
Legal Topics
Sexual Misconduct, Professional Misconduct
Health Law Professional Discipline Sexual Misconduct Professional Misconduct

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Care Complaints Commission

Complainant

Dr Fabian Baez

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Occupational/disciplinary Proceedings / Merits Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dr Baez engaged in sexual and/or inappropriate professional misconduct with Patients A, B, C, and D
  2. 2 Whether the evidence satisfies the civil standard of proof for professional misconduct
  3. 3 Whether conduct amounts to professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation (Adoption of National Law) Act 2009 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that complaints against Dr Baez regarding Patients A, C, and D were proved to the requisite civil standard, constituting professional misconduct, relying on the credibility of complainant witnesses, supporting contemporaneous complaints, admissions by Dr Baez, and a finding that denial of key facts by Dr Baez was a lie motivated by consciousness of guilt. The complaint regarding Patient B was not proved, primarily due to conflicting and uncorroborated evidence and failure to satisfy the Briginshaw standard.

Court Disposition

Complaints regarding Patients A, C, and D proved; complaint regarding Patient B not proved.