Health Care Complaints Commission v Tan [2016] NSWCATOD 77

Health Care Complaints Commission v Tan [2016] NSWCATOD 77

The respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct by repeatedly and intentionally prescribing drugs of addiction in potentially fatal doses without lawful authority, failing to adequately assess and record the care of patients, and disregarding legal and professional obligations, thus justifying disqualification for protection of the public and maintenance of professional standards.

Parties
Complainant: Health Care Complaints Commission; Respondent: Dr Ghee Hong Michael Tan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceedings / Final Judgment
Outcome
Respondent found guilty of professional misconduct; disqualified from registration for three years; prohibition order made; costs awarded to complainant.
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Medical Practitioner Regulation, Prescribing Drugs of Addiction, Record Keeping Standards, Protective Orders
Health Law Professional Discipline Professional Misconduct Medical Practitioner Regulation Prescribing Drugs of Addiction Record Keeping Standards Protective Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Care Complaints Commission

Complainant

Dr Ghee Hong Michael Tan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Proceedings / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether protective orders should be made against the respondent including disqualification and prohibition on providing mental health services

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct by repeatedly and intentionally prescribing drugs of addiction in potentially fatal doses without lawful authority, failing to adequately assess and record the care of patients, and disregarding legal and professional obligations, thus justifying disqualification for protection of the public and maintenance of professional standards.

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty of professional misconduct; disqualified from registration for three years; prohibition order made; costs awarded to complainant.

Orders

  • The respondent is disqualified from being registered as a medical practitioner for a period of three years from this date.
  • The National Board with which the respondent was registered is required to record the fact that the Tribunal would have cancelled the registration of the respondent in the National Register kept by it.