Health Care Complaints Commission v Hill [2023] NSWCATOD 101

Health Care Complaints Commission v Hill [2023] NSWCATOD 101

Dr Adam Hill was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct for performing an invasive digital rectal examination on an anaesthetised patient without consent and outside his scope of practice as an anaesthetist. Notwithstanding mitigating factors such as admission, remorse, remedial steps, and lack of prior...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceeding / Final Determination on the Papers
Outcome
Dr Adam Hill is reprimanded for unsatisfactory professional conduct; he is ordered to pay the costs of the HCCC as agreed or assessed; publication of Patient A's name is prohibited.
Legal Topics
['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'medical Practitioners—disciplinary Proceedings' 'patient Consent' 'anaesthetists—scope of Practice']
['health Law' 'administrative Law' 'professional Discipline'] ['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'medical Practitioners—disciplinary Proceedings' 'patient Consent' 'anaesthetists—scope of Practice']

Source-derived case record

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

Disciplinary Proceeding / Final Determination on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Adam Hill engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct by conducting a digital rectal examination on an anaesthetised patient without consent and outside his scope of practice.' 'What orders are appropriate for the protection of the public and maintenance of professional standards following a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Adam Hill was found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct for performing an invasive digital rectal examination on an anaesthetised patient without consent and outside his scope of practice as an anaesthetist. Notwithstanding mitigating factors such as admission, remorse, remedial steps, and lack of prior complaints, the seriousness of the conduct required orders to protect the public and uphold professional standards, resulting in his reprimand and an order for costs.

Court Disposition

Dr Adam Hill is reprimanded for unsatisfactory professional conduct; he is ordered to pay the costs of the HCCC as agreed or assessed; publication of Patient A's name is prohibited.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 149(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), Dr Adam Hill is reprimanded.' 'Pursuant to cl 13 of Schedule 5D of the National Law, Dr Hill is to pay the costs of the proceedings in the Tribunal of the HCCC, as agreed or assessed.' 'Pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and...