Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Jones [2012] NSWMT 19

Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Jones [2012] NSWMT 19

Because Dr Jones admitted the facts and misconduct alleged in the First Complaint, and the evidence including Dr Byrne's unchallenged report showed dangerous, grossly negligent prescribing and poor record keeping, the Tribunal found unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct proved. On the Second Complaint, the admissions and evidence showed that Dr Jones knowingly wrote post-dated prescriptions while aware of likely restrictions and with a degree of intent to circumvent the bar on post-dating and the possible restrictions, amounting to professional misconduct. Although deregistration was arguable, the public could be protected by stringent conditions removing his...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Medical Disciplinary Complaints Alleging Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct and Professional Misconduct / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Complaints
Outcome
First Complaint and Second Complaint proved; Dr Jones reprimanded, his registration made subject to conditions, fined in respect of the Second Complaint, and ordered to pay the complainant's costs.
Legal Topics
['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'prescription of Schedule 8 Drugs and Schedule 4 D Drugs' 'post Dated Prescriptions' 'medical Record Keeping' 'conditions on Medical Registration']
['health Law' 'professional Discipline' 'administrative Law'] ['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'prescription of Schedule 8 Drugs and Schedule 4 D Drugs' 'post Dated Prescriptions' 'medical Record Keeping' 'conditions on Medical Registration']

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

Medical Disciplinary Complaints Alleging Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct and Professional Misconduct / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Complaints

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Jones was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) in relation to prescribing to seven patients and record keeping.' 'Whether the conduct alleged in the First Complaint amounted to professional misconduct under section 139E of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW).' 'Whether Dr Jones was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct in writing three post-dated prescriptions for drugs of addiction or prescribed substances shortly before section 150 proceedings.' 'What protective orders should be made, including whether deregistration, suspension, conditions, reprimand, a fine and costs were appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Dr Jones admitted the facts and misconduct alleged in the First Complaint, and the evidence including Dr Byrne's unchallenged report showed dangerous, grossly negligent prescribing and poor record keeping, the Tribunal found unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct proved. On the Second Complaint, the admissions and evidence showed that Dr Jones knowingly wrote post-dated prescriptions while aware of likely restrictions and with a degree of intent to circumvent the bar on post-dating and the possible restrictions, amounting to professional misconduct. Although deregistration was arguable, the public could be protected by stringent conditions removing his...

Court Disposition

First Complaint and Second Complaint proved; Dr Jones reprimanded, his registration made subject to conditions, fined in respect of the Second Complaint, and ordered to pay the complainant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The Practitioner is reprimanded in respect of both complaints.' 'The Practitioner is subject to conditions on his registration as set out in Annexure 3 to these reasons.' "The conditions may be reviewed by the Medical Council of NSW under Part 8 of Division 8 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law...