Health Care Complaints Commission v Hasil [2012] NSWMT 1

Health Care Complaints Commission v Hasil [2012] NSWMT 1

The respondent's admitted and proved failures to make adequate patient records contravened the applicable Medical Practice Regulations and therefore constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 36(1)(b) of the Medical Practice Act 1992, but the conduct was not sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct and did not establish significantly substandard clinical knowledge, skill, judgment or improper or unethical conduct. The Commission did not prove that the respondent was not of good character. Complaint three was proved because the medical evidence established cognitive impairment from a head injury, compromising the respondent's mental capacity and communication...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Medical Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning Complaints of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, Professional Misconduct, Character and Impairment / Principal Judgment on Complaints; Consequential or Protective Orders Deferred for Further Submissions
Outcome
Complaint one partly established as unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 36(1)(b) of the Medical Practice Act 1992; professional misconduct not established; Complaint two not established; Complaint three established; consequential or protective orders deferred.
Legal Topics
['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'medical Record Keeping' 'good Character' 'impairment' 'competence to Practise Medicine' 'procedural Fairness' 'non Publication Orders']
['health Law' 'medical Disciplinary Law' 'administrative Law'] ['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'professional Misconduct' 'medical Record Keeping' 'good Character' 'impairment' 'competence to Practise Medicine' 'procedural Fairness' 'non Publication 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Medical Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning Complaints of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, Professional Misconduct, Character and Impairment / Principal Judgment on Complaints; Consequential or Protective Orders Deferred for Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent failed to make and keep adequate records for patients and thereby contravened the Medical Practice Regulation 1998 (NSW) and Medical Practice Regulation 2003 (NSW).' "Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct under the Medical Practice Act 1992." 'Whether the respondent was not of good character.' 'Whether the respondent suffered an impairment detrimentally affecting, or likely to detrimentally affect, his capacity to practise medicine.' 'Whether procedural fairness required the parties to be heard before consequential or protective orders were made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's admitted and proved failures to make adequate patient records contravened the applicable Medical Practice Regulations and therefore constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 36(1)(b) of the Medical Practice Act 1992, but the conduct was not sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct and did not establish significantly substandard clinical knowledge, skill, judgment or improper or unethical conduct. The Commission did not prove that the respondent was not of good character. Complaint three was proved because the medical evidence established cognitive impairment from a head injury, compromising the respondent's mental capacity and communication...

Court Disposition

Complaint one partly established as unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 36(1)(b) of the Medical Practice Act 1992; professional misconduct not established; Complaint two not established; Complaint three established; consequential or protective orders deferred.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal made a non-publication order prohibiting publication of the names of the patients or material capable of identifying the patients.' 'The matter was listed for a directions hearing at 9.30am on Wednesday 22 February 2012 to fix a date for further submissions, including submissions on costs.']