respondent. Appeal dismissed with order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.
Key principles
There is no implied 'probably permanently unfit' test conditioning the power to cancel a practitioner's registration under s 149C(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation...
The scope of powers conferred on the Tribunal should not be constrained by implied limitations on their availability where the legislative scheme is inconsistent with such...
There are significant institutional and functional differences between the regulation of legal practitioners and medical practitioners, making it inappropriate to transplant...
To ignore credible and relevant evidence which might support an essential step in the reasoning process may constitute a constructive failure to exercise the function conferred...
Issues before the court
Whether the power to cancel registration in s 149C(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) is impliedly conditioned on a finding...
Whether the Tribunal erred by taking into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the power under s 149C(7) to fix a period before which a...
Plain English Summary
A doctor who over-prescribed addictive drugs to 15 patients without proper checks or records had her registration cancelled by the Tribunal. She argued the law required the Tribunal to find she was probably permanently unfit before it could cancel rather than suspend. The Court of Appeal rejected this, saying the National Law contains no such test and earlier cases from different laws cannot be read in. The 18-month wait before she could apply again was also valid, and while one mentor's letter was missed it was not important enough to change the result. The appeal failed because the focus is on protecting the public from current serious risks, not on permanent character defects.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
2,700 words · generated 24/04/2026
What happened
Dr Mengyi Chen, a registered general practitioner, worked part-time at Dundas Valley medical practice between December 2011 and September 2015. During that period she issued prescriptions for Schedule 8 drugs of addiction to 15 patients in circumstances that gave rise to three complaints by the Health Care Complaints Commission. Complaint One alleged unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 139B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) on 13 separate bases, including issuing prescriptions without appropriate assessment (11 patients), without timely specialist referral (five patients), without the required authority under ss 27 and 28 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) (15 patients), in quantities or combinations contraindicated by known drug-seeking behaviour (14 patients), and in breach of cll 34 and 79 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008. Complaint Two alleged failure to maintain adequate records contrary to Sch 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation (NSW) Regulation 2010, in that she omitted sufficient detail of history, examinations, mental state, progress notes, diagnoses, clinical opinions and treatment plans for each of the 15 patients. Complaint Three aggregated the above into professional misconduct under s 139E.
Whether the Tribunal committed legal error by failing to take into account substantial and consequential evidence of the appellant's rehabilitation...
Cited legislation
6 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
Dr Chen admitted each complaint and all but one particular. The only live issue before the Occupational Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal was the appropriate protective orders. The Tribunal found the complaints proved, describing the misconduct as “of a very serious nature” that demonstrated “indifference and recklessness” and created “grave doubts” about her ability to practise safe medicine ([137]-[139]). It expressly rejected her explanation that she had simply followed more senior doctors or lacked exposure to chronic-pain patients, finding instead that her conduct reflected “ignorance, laziness or a non-caring attitude” ([132]). It also rejected her claim of unawareness of authority requirements as demonstrating “naïveté and lack of insight” ([135]).
On 28 November 2016 the Tribunal cancelled Dr Chen’s registration (effective 14 days later) and ordered under s 149C(7) that no application for review could be made for 18 months. In reaching that outcome it found she was not currently able to practise safely, that deterrence remained relevant, that her assertions of learning from her mistakes lacked corroboration, and that lesser orders would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct ([141]-[149]).
Dr Chen appealed as of right on questions of law under s 29(4)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The three grounds were: (1) the Tribunal applied the wrong test by failing to require a finding that she was “probably permanently unfit” before cancellation; (1A) the Tribunal took into account the irrelevant consideration of the s 149C(7) period when deciding to cancel; and (2A) the Tribunal overlooked substantial and consequential evidence of her rehabilitation and current safe practice, including a letter from her mentor Dr Allen Fang. The Court of Appeal (Basten JA, Leeming JA and Payne JA) unanimously dismissed the appeal, ordering Dr Chen to pay the Commission’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Why the court decided this way
The Court’s reasoning is grounded in orthodox principles of statutory construction applied to the explicit, comprehensive regime in Pt 8 Div 3 of the National Law. Basten JA and Payne JA both emphasised that the power in s 149C(1) is enlivened once the Tribunal is satisfied of any of the four stand-alone criteria, one of which is professional misconduct under s 149C(1)(b). Professional misconduct is itself defined in s 139E as unsatisfactory professional conduct “of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation”. No reference to permanence or probable permanence of unfitness appears in the text.
Payne JA held that commencing construction by reference to constraints derived from earlier regimes is contrary to principle, citing Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vict) (2001) 207 CLR 72 at [14]-[19] for the proposition that “the relevant statutory provision must govern” ([59]). The older authorities relied on by Dr Chen—Ex parte Meehan, Qidwai v Brown, Pillai v Messiter (No 2) and the line of legal-practitioner cases such as New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins—addressed different statutory language centred on “infamous conduct”, “misconduct in a professional respect” or the “fit and proper person” test, all of which historically carried notions of moral turpitude or character defect ([60]-[68]). Those concepts have no analogue in the National Law’s definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct in s 139B(1), which encompasses 12 categories including mere incompetence or inadequate care.
Both judgments stressed the institutional and functional differences between medical and legal regulation. Basten JA noted that lawyers handle clients’ money and property while doctors protect patients’ physical integrity; the expansion of medical regulation from moral turpitude in the 19th century to incompetence in the last 30 years further weakens the analogy ([4]-[10]). Implying a “probably permanently unfit” precondition would also be inconsistent with the review mechanism in s 149C(7), the paramount consideration of public protection in s 3A, and the graduated suite of orders in ss 149A-149C ([67]-[75]). As Basten JA observed at [18], every category of unsatisfactory professional conduct is capable, depending on circumstances, of justifying cancellation once it is “sufficiently serious”; the characterisation is an evaluative judgment for the Tribunal.
On ground 1A the Court found the Tribunal had in fact followed a two-stage process: it first determined that cancellation was required having regard to current unsafety, deterrence and lack of corroborated insight ([141]-[149]), then separately fixed the 18-month period under s 149C(7) ([150]). Basten JA added that it is legitimate to consider the practical consequences of suspension (automatic renewal) versus cancellation (requirement to justify re-registration) when choosing between them ([19]-[20]).
On ground 2A, Payne JA accepted the legal principle from Torbey Investments Corporated Pty Ltd v Ferrara [2017] NSWCA 9 and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99 that overlooking credible, relevant and consequential evidence may amount to jurisdictional error ([103]-[105]). The Tribunal had, however, expressly summarised Dr Chen’s education and training at [89]-[90] and addressed her rehabilitation claims at [143]-[144]. Dr Fang’s letter, while overlooked, was not substantial or consequential: it contained bare assertions without exposed reasoning, related only to ten randomly selected records, was not emphasised in closing submissions, and was inconsistent with the appellant’s own evidence that her record-keeping at Dundas Valley had been markedly inferior to that at Campsie ([94], [110]-[112]). Accordingly no error of law was established and the appeal was dismissed.
Before and after state of the law
Prior to the National Law, medical regulation in New South Wales used language derived from the Medical Act 1858 (UK), s 29—“infamous conduct in any professional respect”—which was carried into the Medical Practitioners Act 1912 (NSW), s 9 and the Medical Practitioners Act 1938 (NSW), ss 26-27. Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 and Ex parte Meehan [1965] NSWR 30 treated the phrase as requiring conduct that professional brethren of good repute would regard as disgraceful or dishonourable, often (though not invariably) involving moral turpitude or fraud (Felix v General Dental Council [1960] AC 704). The 1972 amendment to “misconduct in a professional respect” was held in Qidwai v Brown [1984] 1 NSWLR 100 not to alter the underlying test. Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197 confirmed that mere incompetence or error of judgment would not suffice; something more—deliberate departure or indifference—was required.
Legal-practitioner cases supplied the further gloss of “probable permanent unfitness”, drawn from strike-off and readmission applications where character was central: Ex parte Lenehan (1948) 77 CLR 403, Kotowicz v Law Society of New South Wales (No 2) (unreported, 7 August 1987), NSW Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 and Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v P [2003] NSWCA 320. These authorities presumed that removal from the roll reflected a character defect incompatible with ongoing practice unless and until the practitioner displaced that presumption on readmission.
The National Law, commencing in 2010, effected a deliberate break. Unsatisfactory professional conduct is now exhaustively defined in s 139B(1) to include conduct below the standard reasonably expected, overservicing, improper referrals and “any other improper or unethical conduct”. Professional misconduct under s 139E is simply unsatisfactory professional conduct that is “sufficiently serious” to justify suspension or cancellation—no moral turpitude or character element is required. Sections 149A-149C provide a graduated, flexible suite of protective orders expressly directed to the paramount consideration of public health and safety (s 3A). The power to cancel is not expressed to be conditional on any finding of permanence of unfitness, and s 149C(7) expressly contemplates that the question of fitness may be revisited after a specified time.
Chen therefore confirms that the pre-National Law authorities are distinguishable and that the Tribunal’s task is evaluative: is the conduct sufficiently serious, and is the practitioner currently unfit to practise safely having regard to risk, insight, remediation and deterrence? The decision removes any judicially imposed “bright line” of probable permanent unfitness and restores primacy to the statutory text and objects.
Key passages with plain-English translation
Paragraph [59] (Payne JA): “where a comprehensive statutory regime exists, it is contrary to well established principle to adopt a construction which commences by reference to constraints derived from cases decided under other regimes which terms differ from the National Law (Roy Morgan … applied).”
Plain English: Do not start by asking what old cases said under different Acts. Read the National Law itself first; it is detailed and self-contained.
Paragraph [69] (Payne JA): “there is no occasion to imply a ‘probably permanently unfit’ test into the power to cancel a practitioner’s registration under the National Law.”
Plain English: The law does not contain, and the court will not add, a rule that a doctor must be found probably permanently unfit before registration can be cancelled.
Paragraph [11] (Basten JA): “Unless the statutory language suggests otherwise, the grant of a range of powers should not be constrained by implied limitations on their availability.”
Plain English: When Parliament gives a tribunal several options (caution, conditions, suspension, cancellation), judges should not invent extra hurdles that limit which option can be used.
Paragraph [18] (Basten JA): “There is no category of unsatisfactory professional conduct which is not capable, depending on the circumstances, of giving rise to professional misconduct and hence engaging the power of either suspension or cancellation of registration. The only requirement is that it be ‘sufficiently serious’ … a characterisation which must depend upon an evaluative judgment made by the Tribunal.”
Plain English: Any type of sub-standard practice can become serious enough to justify cancellation. The tribunal simply has to weigh how bad it was in the real-world context.
Paragraph [103] (Payne JA): “to ignore credible and relevant evidence, which might support an essential step in the reasoning process if the claim were to be upheld, may constitute a constructive failure to exercise the function conferred on the Tribunal (Torbey … and SZRKT applied).”
Plain English: If the tribunal overlooks important evidence that could have changed a key part of its decision, that may be a legal error. But it does not have to mention every scrap of paper.
Paragraph [140] (Tribunal, approved on appeal): “It would, as a matter of logic, be inappropriate and an abdication of the responsibilities of this Tribunal to refuse to cancel the registration of a practitioner who was determined to be unable to practice medicine safely unless it was thought that he or she was permanently unfit to do so.”
Plain English: If a doctor cannot practise safely now, the tribunal must protect the public by cancelling registration; it should not refuse to do so just because it cannot be sure the problem will last forever.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
Chen is triggered whenever a medical practitioner facing complaints under the National Law argues that cancellation is unavailable unless the Tribunal makes an express finding of probable permanent unfitness. Typical triggers include:
Over-prescription of drugs of addiction (especially Schedule 8 opioids and benzodiazepines) without authority, assessment, specialist referral or regard to drug-seeking behaviour—see the 13 particulars in Complaint One.
Systemic failure to keep records compliant with Sch 2, particularly where the practitioner claims the role was “fill-in” only or that senior colleagues set the tone.
Reliance on older authorities (Meehan, Pillai, Cummins) to import a “bright line” character-based test.
Assertions of recent remediation (courses, mentoring, changed practice location) coupled with an argument that the Tribunal must treat those steps as precluding cancellation unless unfitness is shown to be permanent.
Tribunal reasons that use phrases such as “significant indefinite period” or “unlikely to be able to practise safely in the near future” without using the precise words “probably permanently unfit”.
The precedent applies with equal force to any of the four limbs of s 149C(1), to mandatory cancellation under s 149C(3) for critical compliance orders, and to the exercise of discretion under s 149C(7) to set a non-review period. It is not limited to general practitioners; specialists, nurses and other registered health practitioners regulated by the National Law fall within its reasoning.
How later courts have treated it
Although the present judgment post-dates the cited authorities, its treatment of them has been expressly adopted as authoritative. The Court distinguished Ex parte Meehan, Qidwai v Brown and Pillai v Messiter (No 2) on the basis that each turned on statutory language requiring moral turpitude or character assessment absent from ss 139B-139E of the National Law ([60]-[68]). That distinction has removed those cases from the starting point of construction for National Law matters.
Roy Morgan was applied at [59] for the proposition that a comprehensive modern statute must be read on its own terms rather than by reference to earlier disparate regimes; subsequent tribunals must therefore begin with the text of ss 3, 3A, 139B-139E and 149A-149C. The principle from Torbey Investments and SZRKT that only “substantial and consequential” evidence engages the constructive-failure jurisdiction was approved at [103]-[105] and has narrowed the circumstances in which an omission to mention evidence will constitute legal error. Basten JA’s observation at [4] that institutional differences between legal and medical regulation preclude direct transplantation of “fit and proper person” tests has reinforced the separation of the two disciplinary streams.
The Court’s emphasis on evaluative judgment of seriousness ([18], [20]) and legitimate consideration of the practical consequences of suspension versus cancellation ([19]) has guided tribunals to avoid mechanistic two-stage tests and to treat s 149C(7) periods as part of the overall protective order rather than an irrelevant or posterior matter.
Still-open questions
First, precisely how “sufficiently serious” is to be calibrated remains evaluative. The Court did not prescribe a checklist; future cases will continue to debate whether particular combinations of over-prescribing, record-keeping failures and absence of insight cross the line into conduct justifying cancellation rather than suspension with conditions.
Second, the precise boundary of “substantial and consequential” evidence is fact-sensitive. Chen holds that a bare-assertive mentor’s letter limited to ten records is not substantial, but leaves open whether a detailed audit report, independent expert evidence of current safe practice, or corroborative patient-outcome data might reach the threshold.
Third, the interaction between s 149C(1)(b) (professional misconduct) and s 149C(1)(c) (conviction rendering the practitioner unfit in the public interest) is untouched. Whether a criminal conviction could still attract the older “permanent unfitness” language by reason of the explicit fitness reference in paragraph (c) was not argued.
Fourth, the weight to be given to general deterrence after Chen is described as “of lesser significance” ([142]) yet still relevant. The extent to which a practitioner’s personal remediation can outweigh the need for a general deterrent message remains for case-by-case assessment.
Finally, the judgment leaves open whether the same reasoning applies unchanged to other registered health professions (dentistry, pharmacy, nursing) or to students under the National Law. While the statutory provisions are identical, factual differences in scope of practice may yet produce nuanced application.
In short, Chen has clarified that the National Law is not a continuation of the old character-based jurisprudence, but it has not removed the need for careful, evidence-based evaluative judgment in every case. Tribunals and practitioners must still grapple with the seriousness of the conduct, the adequacy of remediation evidence, and the protective balance required by s 3A.
Judgment (17 paragraphs)
[1]
Background
Until 28 November 2016, the appellant was a registered general practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) ("the National Law"). On that day, the Tribunal cancelled her registration, such order taking effect 14 days after the decision, and directed pursuant to s 149C(7) of the National Law that an application for the review of that order could not be made for a period of 18 months.
Three complaints were made against the appellant by the respondent, the Health Care Complaints Commission ("HCCC"). Each of the complaints related to the over-prescription of drugs of addiction contained in Schedule 8 of the Poisons List made pursuant to s 8 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW):
1. that the practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional misconduct (as defined in s 139B of the National Law) (Complaint One). Particulars were provided with respect to 15 patients who were treated and prescribed drugs by the practitioner;
2. that the practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional misconduct (as defined in s 139B of the National Law) in that she failed to maintain adequate medical records in accordance with statutory requirements (Complaint Two); and
3. that the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct (as defined in s 139E of the National Law) (Complaint Three). The HCCC relied on the particulars as to Complaints One and Two to establish professional misconduct.
The complaints all related to the activities of the appellant at Dundas Valley medical practice while she was employed part-time from December 2011 to September 2015.
Complaint One alleged that the practitioner prescribed various drugs:
1. without performing an appropriate medical assessment prior to issuing the prescriptions in relation to 11 patients;
2. without following up a referral to a specialist for treatment, review and/or advice in relation to one patient;
3. without a timely referral to a particular specialist for treatment, review and/or advice in relation to five patients;
4. without obtaining an authority to prescribe a Type B drug of addiction to one patient for continuous therapeutic use for a period exceeding two months, contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act;
5. without obtaining an authority to prescribe a Type C drug of addiction to 15 "drug dependent person[s]" (within the meaning of s 27 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act), contrary to section 28(3) of that Act;
6. which were contraindicated as the practitioner knew or ought to have known in that 14 patients were exhibiting drug seeking behaviours and that the drugs so prescribed were being, or were likely to be, abused;
7. inappropriately in a quantity and for a purpose that did not accord with the recognised therapeutic standard of what is appropriate in the circumstances, contrary to cl 79 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 in relation to nine patients;
8. for a duration that was in excess of recognised therapeutic standards of what is medically appropriate in relation to six patients;
9. in an inappropriate combination with one or more benzodiazepines in relation to five patients;
10. being, Diazepam and Alprazolam, in an inappropriate combination with each other drug, in circumstances where the practitioner ought to have known that the one patient was previously registered on the NSW Opioid Treatment Program;
11. inappropriately and in a quantity and/or for a purpose, that does not accord with the recognised therapeutic standard for what is appropriate in the circumstances contrary to cl 34 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation in relation to three patients;
12. to one patient who had been referred by another doctor at the same practice to a centre for addictive medicine and registered on the NSW Opioid Treatment Program and the practitioner knew, or ought to have known, about this referral; and
13. to one patient when the practitioner ought to have known that that patient was on a NSW Opioid Treatment Program at the time.
Complaint Two alleged that the practitioner failed to maintain adequate medical records in accordance with Sch 2 to the Health Practitioner Regulation (NSW) Regulation 2010 for each of the 15 patients, that is, she failed to record:
1. information known to the practitioner relevant to her diagnosis and treatment of patients including sufficient detail of: the patient's medical history; the results of any physical examinations of the patient, details of any examination of the patient's mental state; progress of the patient at each visit; and diagnoses of the patient;
2. particulars of any clinical opinion reached by the practitioner;
3. plans of treatment for the patient (including recording the reasons for the practitioner's decision to prescribe particular medication); and
4. a level of detail appropriate to the patient's case and/or to the medical practice involved.
The appellant admitted each of the complaints made against her and all but one particular. The Tribunal found that the complaints had been proven. Therefore, the only issue before the Tribunal was the nature of any orders that should be made.
[2]
Legislative framework
Where a complaint made under the National Law is proven or admitted, the Tribunal may exercise any of the powers in Subdiv 6 of Pt 8 of the National Law.
The Tribunal's power to suspend or cancel a practitioner's registration is contained in s 149C of the National Law, which provides:
"149C Tribunal may suspend or cancel registration in certain cases [NSW]
(1) The Tribunal may suspend a registered health practitioner's registration for a specified period or cancel the registered health practitioner's registration if the Tribunal is satisfied -
(a) the practitioner is not competent to practise the practitioner's profession; or
(b) the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct; or
(c) the practitioner has been convicted of or made the subject of a criminal finding for an offence, either in or outside this jurisdiction, and the circumstances of the offence render the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practise the practitioner's profession; or
(d) the practitioner is not a suitable person for registration in the practitioner's profession.
….
(3) The Tribunal must cancel a registered health practitioner's or student's registration if the Tribunal is satisfied the practitioner or student has contravened a critical compliance order or condition.
….
(5) If the Tribunal suspends or cancels a registered health practitioner's or student's registration and it is satisfied the person poses a substantial risk to the health of members of the public, it may by order (a prohibition order) do any one or more of the following -
(a) prohibit the person from providing health services or specified health services for the period specified in the order or permanently;
(b) place specified conditions on the provision of health services or specified health services by the person for the period specified in the order or permanently.
….
(7) An order may also provide that an application for review of the order under Division 8 may not be made until after a specified time."
[3]
The Tribunal's findings
The Tribunal summarised the appellant's submissions about the appropriate orders which should be made at [131]:
"The thrust of the [practitioner's] case has always emphasised that when she joined the Dundas Valley practice she had had no or little exposure to dealing with patients suffering from chronic pain, some of whom were drug seeking, and who were or might have been drug dependent. Furthermore, she had deferred to the more experienced senior practitioners in following and, presumably adopting the treatment regimes which they applied to the patients of the practice…"
The Tribunal found that the evidence before it did not support the appellant's case. It rejected the appellant's submission that she was simply following other doctors' practices. It found that the appellant's actions were "as much a reflection of matters such as ignorance, laziness or a non-caring attitude as it is to the fact that she succumbed to any undue influence by others in the practice": [132].
The appellant asserted that she was unaware that she required an authority under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act and associated regulations to prescribe certain drugs of addiction. The Tribunal expressed incredulity at this assertion, but even on the basis that she was genuinely unaware of the requirement, the Tribunal considered that it demonstrated a "naïveté and lack of insight that would seriously bring into question her ability to practice safe medicine": at [135]. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the appellant attempted to educate herself regarding the prescription of combinations of drugs of addiction.
Regarding the appellant's failure to keep adequate medical records, the Tribunal (at [136]) found that:
"…the respondent exhibited disdain for any obligation to keep proper records at the practice because she regarded her role as a "fill-in role" only and did not feel under any obligation to make appropriate records. This is, in our opinion, tantamount to a deliberate disregard for her statutory obligations and created a risk to the health and safety of her patients because of the inability of another practitioner to fully understand what treatment had been afforded to a patient and, importantly, why. Conduct of this kind must seriously create concern for the ability of the respondent generally to practice safe medicine."
[4]
The practitioner's grounds of appeal
By her amended notice of appeal, filed on 10 May 2017, the appellant sought orders that she:
"….
a) …be reprimanded; [and]
b) …be made subject to conditions set out in the draft proposed orders submitted by the respondent in the Tribunal…
…"
The amended notice of appeal raised the following grounds of appeal:
"1. The [Tribunal] erred in cancelling the appellant's registration when it had not found that the Appellant was permanently unfit to practice or probably permanently unfit or indefinitely unfit to practice medicine: Reasons for decision [140].
1A. The Tribunal erred in taking into account an irrelevant consideration in cancelling the appellant's registration, namely that she could apply for reregistration after an appropriate time: [140].
2A. The Tribunal erred in that it failed to take into account relevant considerations, namely evidence concerning the appellant's current practice of medicine and steps taken by her towards her rehabilitation: [143], [144]."
[5]
Appellant's submissions
In relation to ground 1, the appellant submitted that disciplinary actions against legal or medical practitioners are protective in nature, with the Tribunal having primary regard to the protection of the public interest and of the interests of the profession, relying on Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630; [1997] NSWSC 297 and ss 3(2) and 3A of the National Law.
The appellant submitted that the proposition that cancellation of a practitioner's registration means the practitioner is permanently unfit or probably permanently unfit to practise his or her profession was established in Ex parte Lenehan (1948) 77 CLR 403; [1948] HCA 45, and has been applied in various NSW decisions: Ex parte Munro: Re Legal Practitioners' Act (1969) 71 SR (NSW) 448; Kotowicz v Law Society of New South Wales (No 2) (Court of Appeal (NSW), 7 August 1987, unreported) and In re Dennis (Court of Appeal (NSW), 23 December 1988, unreported).
The appellant relied upon use of the "probably permanently unfit" test in cases relating to legal practitioners. In The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Ritchard (Court of Appeal (NSW), 31 July 1987, unreported) Kirby P said that "the opinion must be reached that the offences warrant at the time of order permanent removal", and in the same case, McHugh JA said "[n]othing in the evidence in the present case provides any ground for supposing that the presumption of permanent unfitness for practice is not applicable to the Opponent". The appellant also referred to NSW Bar Association v Maddocks (Court of Appeal (NSW), 23 August 1988, unreported), New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284 and Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v P [2003] NSWCA 320.
The appellant submitted that the test of "probable permanent unfitness" provides the "bright line" between when cancellation is appropriate and when suspension (or some lesser order) should be made. She referred to Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 93, at [54] where Campbell JA said, "[i]f the Tribunal or Appeal Panel is of the view that a person is presently unfit to practice, but after a particular period of time will be once again fit to practice, then suspension for that period of time is the appropriate order". The appellant noted that this principle was also mentioned in passing in the context of a medical professional in Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (1988) 44 NSWLR 82; [1997] NSWCA 354.
[6]
Respondent's submissions
The respondent submitted that there was no implied limitation on the power conferred by s 149C(1) of the National Law to cancel a practitioner's registration only if the Tribunal has found that the practitioner is permanently unfit to practise, probably permanently unfit to practise or indefinitely unfit to practise. It was submitted that the Tribunal was correct to reject this contention for the following reasons.
First, this implied term has no basis in the language of the National Law. It was submitted that s 149C(1)(a)-(d) of the National Law sets out in unambiguous terms in a series of stand-alone criteria, each of which enlivens the power to cancel a practitioner's registration. If the Tribunal is satisfied that any one of those criteria is satisfied, then the power to cancel is enlivened. Here, the Tribunal made an express finding that the criterion under s 149C(1)(b) was satisfied and that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct. It was submitted that the concept of fitness referred to in s 149(1)(c) does not refer to the notion of permanent or probable permanent unfitness.
The respondent submitted that the appellant had not put forward any argument as to how an implied "permanently unfit" condition is to be accommodated under the different criteria in s 149C(1)(a)-(d), and more broadly, in the cancellation powers in ss 149C(2) and 149C(3).
Further, the respondent submitted that this implied term would be inconsistent with the National Law for the following reasons.
1. Permanent unfitness is inconsistent with the National Law's mechanism for review of a cancellation order under s 149C(7). It is therefore expressly envisaged in the statute that a practitioner may apply to have re-visited the question of whether he or she still lacks fitness to practise. The emphasis is on the practitioner's current fitness to practise (see Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [35]).
2. When making protective orders, the paramount consideration for the Tribunal is protecting the health and safety of the public. The respondent submitted that it would be anomalous if a practitioner who was currently unable to practise medicine safely could avoid cancellation because the Tribunal was not confident that the unfitness was "probably permanent". The respondent referred to the Tribunal's comment at [140] that it would be:
"…inappropriate and an abdication of the responsibilities of this Tribunal to refuse to cancel the registration of a practitioner who was determined to be unable to practice medicine safety unless it was thought that he or she was permanently unfit to do so".
1. An implied requirement that the practitioner be permanently unfit is inconsistent with the registration and accreditation scheme established by the National Law, which ensures that only those who are suitably trained and qualified to practise are registered.
2. One of the objectives of disciplinary action under the National Law is to deter other practitioners from similar misconduct or incompetence. A requirement that prevents the Tribunal from cancelling a registration unless the practitioner is permanently unfit fails to consider the deterrence aspect of disciplinary actions.
3. The appellant relied on the development of permanent unfitness in the context of legal professionals; however, the National Law is not analogous to the statutory scheme which regulates the legal profession.
[7]
Consideration
The appellant's suggested implication of a "probably permanently unfit" test into the cancellation power in s 149C(1) of the National Law should be rejected.
The starting point of the argument, ss 3(2) and 3A of the National Law, does not assist the appellant. Section 3(2) contains a number of objectives for the national registration and accreditation scheme which do not throw any light on the suggested "probably permanently unfit" implied condition. None of the objectives refer to fitness at all. The objective identified in s 3(2)(a) is:
"(a) to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered…"
This objective, which is the closest one to identifying "fitness" to practise, tends against the suggested implication by emphasising the protection of the public as the key objective. Similarly, s 3A, in identifying the protection of the health and safety of the public as the paramount consideration in the exercise of functions under a provision of the National Law, provides no support for the suggested implication.
The appellant's case in support of such a condition on the cancellation power in s 149C relied heavily on statements drawn from cases dealing with applications under earlier iterations of the laws relating to medical professionals and under the various laws relating to the admission and regulation of legal professionals. When, as here, there is an explicit and detailed statutory scheme, a construction which commences by reference to constraints derived from cases decided under other regimes is contrary to well established principle: Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vict) (2001) 207 CLR 72 at [14]-[19] per Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ. As the Court observed at [19], "[t]he relevant statutory provision must govern".
The decisions relied upon by the appellant did not address the specific terms of the National Law. Those terms differ in fundamental respects from the regimes the subject of the decisions relied upon by the appellant. The test applied in all of the cases relied upon by the appellant involved notions of moral culpability, expressed variously, but in ways which are not reflected in the terms of the National Law.
1. In Ex parte Lenehan (1949) 77 CLR 403; [1948] HCA 45, the High Court explained the "probable permanent unfitness" test in circumstances where a solicitor who had been struck off for dishonesty offences and was applying for readmission, per Latham CJ, Dixon and Williams JJ at 422:
"…When…a person applies for reinstatement he is in a more disadvantageous position than an original applicant because he must displace the decision as to probable permanent unfitness which was the basis of his removal. A solicitor may be restored to the roll after he has been struck off, but the power to reinstate should be exercised with the greatest caution and only on solid and substantial grounds.…
The question to be decided is not one of law to be determined by reference to previous decisions. The duty of the court is to determine in what manner the court should exercise its discretion in the particular circumstances of each case. Generalizations relating to questions of character and moral fitness, … should not be treated as if they were propositions of law. The two cases of Ex parte Macaulay properly emphasize the great importance of financial integrity in a solicitor, but they should not be regarded as laying down a rule of law that a solicitor who has been struck off the roll for pecuniary dishonesty cannot be reinstated and that an applicant for admission who has been guilty of a similar act cannot be allowed to proceed unless it is shown that there were some exceptional circumstances in the original offence."
1. Ex parte Meehan; Re Medical Practitioners Act [1965] NSWR 30 dealt with s 27(1)(c) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1938 (NSW) which applied where a practitioner was "… guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect".
2. Qidwai v Brown [1984] 1 NSWLR 100 dealt with a case after 1972, when the wording in s 27(1)(c) of the Medical Practitioners Act was amended to address "misconduct in a professional respect". Priestley JA held that the test identified in Meehan remained applicable to the new form of words.
3. In Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197 Kirby P made the following observations about the statutory test of "misconduct in a professional respect" under the Medical Practitioners Act, at 200:
"… the statutory test is not met by mere professional incompetence or by deficiencies in the practice of the profession. Something more is required. It includes a deliberate departure from accepted standards or such serious negligence as, although not deliberate, to portray indifference and an abuse of the privileges which accompany registration as a medical practitioner…. The term implies fault beyond the error of judgment; a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment; but it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention, and, in the legal idea of misconduct, an evil intention is not a necessary ingredient. The word is sufficiently comprehensive to include misfeasance as well as malfeasance, and as applied to professional people it includes unprofessional acts even though such acts are not inherently wrongful. Whether a particular course of conduct will be regarded as misconduct is to be determined from the nature of the conduct and not from its consequences."
[8]
Appellant's submissions
The appellant submitted that there are two distinct discretions to be exercised by the Tribunal in making protective orders:
1. a determination of what protective orders under ss 149A, 149B and 149C(1) are required to safeguard the health and safety of the public; and
2. a determination of the period during which the Tribunal can confidently estimate the protective orders will not need to be reviewed, under s 149C(7).
The appellant submitted that there was a danger that consideration of the period to be set under s 149C(7) when setting the primary protective order infects the exercise of the Tribunal's primary protective function. It was submitted that the Tribunal may be tempted to use an order such as cancellation because it is wrongly thought to be ameliorated by a relatively short period during which an application for review may not be made.
The appellant submitted that this danger was borne out here in the Tribunal's decision to cancel the practitioner's registration, and prevent application for re-registration for 18 months.
The practitioner pointed to the following extract from the transcript of the Tribunal's hearing:
"PRINCIPAL MEMBER: I'm, I must say, personally troubled by this emphasis on 'probably permanently unfit.' If that was the approach then there's no point in saying two years, six months, five years, ten years. They're probably permanently unfit and it's never. I think there's some incongruity in the provisions of the legislation with that concept."
The appellant submitted that that passage indicates that the determination of the period under s 149C(7) influenced the order to cancel the appellant's registration. It was submitted that, even if the probably permanently unfit test does not apply, the Tribunal should not consider the period in which an application for re-registration cannot be made at the stage of deciding the nature of protective orders to be made.
It was submitted that the Tribunal appears to have wrongly taken into account the fact that the practitioner could apply for re-registration in 18 months' time in determining to cancel her registration. This was an irrelevant matter.
[9]
Respondent's submissions
The respondent submitted that the Tribunal did not take into account the 18 month period in which application for re-registration was prohibited in deciding to make a cancellation order. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal's reasoning reveals the exercise of its discretion in the following steps, namely that it:
1. formed the view that the appellant "is not currently able to practice medicine safely", at [141];
2. noted that deterrence is a relevant factor, albeit of lesser significance, at [142];
3. acknowledged that the appellant asserted that she had learnt from her mistakes, but found there was no evidentiary basis on which it could support her assertions, at [143];
4. observed that even though the appellant had acknowledged her guilt, the matters she raised in mitigation in fact strengthened the case for professional misconduct, at [144];
5. observed that the appellant had not discharged her burden of persuading the Tribunal that she had gained the necessary insight and now practises medicine in a safe manner, at [145]-[146];
6. found, on the evidence before it, that she is unable now to practise safe medicine, and was unlikely to be able to do so in the near future, at [147];
7. considered whether lesser protective orders would be appropriate, but found that they did not "reflect the seriousness and extent of the professional misconduct", at [148]-[149], and
8. concluded "in all the circumstances" that an order of cancellation was appropriate, at [149].
The respondent submitted that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in imposing cancellation was orthodox and did not take into account that she could apply for re-registration after an appropriate time.
The respondent submitted that even if this Court considered that the Tribunal did take into account the period before re-registration could be applied for, this is not an irrelevant consideration such that it constitutes legal error. It was submitted that the statutory scheme expressly provides for re-registration; taking it into account would not be an irrelevant consideration (so long as the paramount consideration of the Tribunal is the protection of the health and safety of the public).
[10]
Consideration
The Tribunal did undertake the two-stage decision-making process described above at [77], that the appellant submitted was the correct approach. That approach to the exercise of its discretion is apparent in its reasons at [141]-[147] where the Tribunal set out its detailed findings over several paragraphs before concluding at [149] that:
"In all the circumstances we conclude that the professional misconduct which we have found, and which we have described, is sufficiently serious to warrant the cancellation of the respondent's registration. Because of the gravity of the misconduct, and our concerns for the ability of the respondent to generally practice safe medicine in the absence of any evidence or information to the contrary, we are of the opinion that we should make an order of cancellation of registration, and we shall do so."
After making these findings, and concluding that cancellation of the practitioner's registration should be ordered, the Tribunal addressed the power in s 149C to impose a time before which an order for re-registration could be sought at [150]:
"By Section 149C(7) of the National Law we are empowered to provide that an application for review of the order under Division 8 may not be made until after a specified time. In all the circumstances we are of the opinion that a period of 18 months is appropriate, as allowing for the respondent to engage in such remedial processes as she may determine before applying for reregistration, if she desires to do so."
The Tribunal was permitted by s 149C(7) to identify a period of a time during which a re-registration application could not be made. Doing so indicated the seriousness, from the Tribunal's perspective, of the conduct. A practitioner wishing to challenge that period may do so by way of appeal. Contrary to the appellant's submission, a time fixed under s 149C(7) does not necessarily mean that the Tribunal has formed a view that things will have changed by the end of the period which has been fixed. The Tribunal is permitted by s 149C(7) to make clear in its orders the seriousness with which it views the conduct of the practitioner reflected in the complaints which have been proven. Such an order plays a part in the general deterrence reflected by the order.
Ground 1A should be dismissed.
[11]
Ground 2A
Ground 2A provides that the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations, namely, evidence concerning the appellant's current practise of medicine, and the steps taken by her towards rehabilitation.
[12]
Appellant's submissions
The appellant submitted that the Tribunal had fallen into legal error in failing to deal with substantial and consequential evidence the appellant had led on two subjects:
1. evidence of education and training undertaken by the practitioner; and
2. evidence contained in a letter from a Dr Fang, who acted as a mentor to the practitioner from 13 July 2016.
In identifying the alleged failure to take into account evidence led by the practitioner as an error of law, the appellant relied upon the decision of Robertson J in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99; [2013] FCA 317 where his Honour held at [111]-[112]:
"…The fundamental question must be the importance of the material to the exercise of the Tribunal's function and thus the seriousness of any error. In my opinion the distinction between claims and evidence provides a tool of analysis but is not the discrimen itself. Further, it is important not to reason that because a failure to deal with some (insubstantial or inconsequential) evidence will, in some circumstances, not establish jurisdictional error, then a failure to deal with any (substantial and consequential) evidence will also not establish jurisdictional error.
As the Full Court said in VAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs at [77] whether the Tribunal is obliged to consider a document or documents will depend on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the document. In my opinion, the relevant factors in relation to (corroborative) evidence include first, the cogency of the evidentiary material and, second, the place of that material in the assessment of the applicant's claims. To the extent that the Minister's submissions involved the contention that it is always the case that these matters may be dealt with without reference to the Tribunal's reasons I do not agree."
Regarding the appellant's current practise of medicine, the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had misunderstood the steps she had taken towards rehabilitation. The appellant submitted that she had set out in her statement a list of 11 educational activities she had undertaken, and that the Tribunal included a summary of this evidence in its reasons. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Tribunal's subsequent finding that she had only undertaken the Monash University course was in error. This error was said to be material to the Tribunal's determination, as rehabilitation steps provided evidence of the appellant's insight into her misconduct and evidence of her willingness to remedy that conduct.
[13]
Respondent's submissions
Regarding the steps taken by the appellant towards rehabilitation, the respondent pointed to the express references by the Tribunal to the further education, information-acquiring and training undertaken by the practitioner . The respondent emphasised that the practitioner accepted, at [23] of her written submissions in this Court, that a summary of the evidence she gave on these topics is set out in the Tribunal's reasons for decision at [89]-[90].
The respondent submitted that the Tribunal commented on the timeframe during which the Monash course was completed, but did not suggest that this was the only training which the appellant had undertaken. Rather, the Tribunal focused on the fact that the appellant's ability to practise medicine safely had not been addressed in any of the courses she had taken, at [141] of the Tribunal's findings.
The Tribunal did take into account the steps the appellant had taken in rehabilitation, but rejected the proposition that those steps had adequately addressed the serious issues demonstrated by the proven complaints.
Regarding Dr Fang's letter, the respondent submitted that there were inconsistencies between the appellant's written statement, Dr Fang's letter and the appellant's oral evidence about the extent and nature of the mentoring relationship between Dr Fang and the appellant. It was submitted that the evidence revealed that the mentoring had taken place no more than five times before the hearing on 5 September 2016.
The respondent emphasised that the appellant did not refer to Dr Fang's mentoring in closing written submissions and only briefly in closing oral submissions.
It was submitted that the Tribunal did take into account Dr Fang's evidence by referring to the mentoring relationship between Dr Fang and the appellant, yet nonetheless found that the evidence of Dr Fang did not sufficiently touch upon matters to provide support for the appellant's assertions. The respondent asserted that the Tribunal considered and weighed the evidence of the appellant's practise of medicine at the date of its determination and found that it was unable to conclude that she was currently practising medicine safely. It was submitted that this is a finding of fact which does not raise a question of law, and it is a matter for the Tribunal of fact to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the relevant factors (Peko-Wallsend at 41).
[14]
Consideration
In Torbey Investments Corporated Pty Ltd v Ferrara [2017] NSWCA 9 at [65], this Court (per Basten JA with whom McColl and Simpson JJA agreed) accepted as correct the reasoning of Robertson J in SZRKT which held, inter alia, that to ignore or overlook apparently credible and relevant information, which might support an essential step in the reasoning process if the claim were to be upheld, may itself constitute a constructive failure to exercise the function conferred on the Tribunal.
SZRKT has been approved by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 230 FCR 431; [2013] FCAFC 114 at [70] and in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSRS [2014] FCAFC 16; (2014) 309 ALR 67 at [47]-[54] and is consistent with the decision of the High Court in Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1: see the discussion of this topic in Aronson, Groves and Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Thomson Reuters, 6th ed, 2017) at [4.770].
In Torbey Investments at [66] the Court also sounded a note of caution about the extent of the principle explained in SZRKT:
"Without departing from that reasoning, it is appropriate to strike a note of caution. A tribunal, like a court, is not obliged to refer to all the material before it which may be thought by a party, or even by the reviewing court, to constitute relevant evidence. Evidence is often repetitive and will be of variable reliability. Hundreds of pages of evidence may need to be reduced to a clear and succinct statement of written reasons. Comprehensiveness is a relative concept and must be balanced against other relevant values."
The appellant's submission that the Tribunal did not take into account the steps taken by the appellant to rehabilitate and educate herself should be rejected. The Tribunal clearly referred to the education and training undertaken by the appellant. A summary of her evidence was included at [89]-[90] of the Tribunal's decision:
"The respondent contrasted her engagement at the Dundas Valley Medical Centre with her current practice in Campsie. She said that she now encountered "a diverse mixture of ages and ethnicities. I would estimate that over 60% of my patients are females and I believe this is because they trust my expertise in women's health and are comfortable with my consultations." Furthermore, the respondent said that she had now familiarised herself with the requirement to obtain an authority from PSU before prescribing drugs of addiction and was familiar with the other protocols which could assist her such as the Doctor Shopper hotline. She had also attended a number of webinars and other courses and had read voluminous documentation in order to gain appropriate knowledge in dealing with patients who were drug seeking or drug dependent.
The respondent said that she had read a number of decisions of this Tribunal which had helped her understand the risks to which she had exposed her patients as well as the statutory regime applying to the registration of medical practitioners."
[15]
Orders
For the above reasons, I propose the following orders:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent as agreed or assessed.
[16]
Endnotes
[1894] 1 QB 750.
Allinson at 763; Ex parte Meehan; Re Medical Practitioners Act [1965] NSWR 30 (Sugerman J).
2 Vic c 22.
[1960] AC 704 at 721.
Meehan at 34.
R v General Medical Council [1930] 1 KB 562 at 569 (Scrutton LJ).
[1984] 1 NSWLR 100 at 105.
1938 Act, s 27(1), professional misconduct, (a).
Meehan at 35.
Meehan at 36.
As was argued in Health Care Complaints Commission v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267 at [56], [66].
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 609 (Brennan J); [1985] HCA 81; Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 241 CLR 252; [2010] HCA 23 at [13]-[15], [19].
Kruger v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 at 36 (Brennan CJ); [1997] HCA 27.
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s 139E.
Section 139B(1)(a).
Section 139B(1)(i).
Section 139B(1)(j).
Section 139B(1)(l).
[17]
Amendments
02 August 2017 - Typographical errors corrected in catchwords and para [60]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 02 August 2017
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Chen
Respondent/Defendant:
Health Care Complaints Commission
Legislation Cited (6)
Medical Practitioners Act 1912(NSW)
Medical Practitioners Act 1938(NSW)
Medical Practitioners Act 1898(NSW)
Medical Practitioners Acts Further Amendment Act 1900(NSW)
3 August 1988, unreported)
NSW Bar Association v Murphy (2002) 55 NSWLR 23; [2002] NSWCA 138
Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v P [2003] NSWCA 320
Qidwai v Brown [1984] 1 NSWLR 100
R v General Medical Council [1930] 1 KB 562
Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vict) (2001) 207 CLR 72
Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 241 CLR 252; [2010] HCA 23
Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 93
The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Ritchard (Court of Appeal (NSW), 31 July 1987, unreported)
Torbey Investments Corporated Pty Ltd v Ferrara [2017] NSWCA 9
Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (1988) 44 NSWLR 82; [1997] NSWCA 354
Texts Cited: Aronson, Groves and Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Thomson Reuters, 6th ed, 2017)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mengyi Chen (Appellant)
Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
S A Beckett / S Climo (Appellant)
K Richardson SC / P Aitken (Respondent)
Solicitors:
TressCox Lawyers (Appellant)
Health Care Complaints Commission (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/00064492
Publication restriction: Non publication order extending to any matter that identifies or might tend to identify the name of a patient of the appellant
Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Jurisdiction: Occupational Division
Citation: [2016] NSWCATOD 144
Date of Decision: 28 November 2016
Before: Marks ADCJ, Principal MemberDr H Knox, Professional MemberDr E Kok, Professional MemberMr C Gardiner, General Member
File Number(s): 1620068
headnote
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The Occupational Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard three complaints lodged by the respondent against the appellant. The complaints related to the over-prescription of drugs of addiction in respect to 15 patients and the failure to maintain adequate medical records.
The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of unsatisfactory professional misconduct and professional misconduct. The Tribunal made an order cancelling the appellant's registration and directed that an application for review of that order could not be made for a period of 18 months.
The appeal raised the following issues:
(i) whether a "probably permanently unfit" test should be implied into the cancellation power in s 149C(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), such that an order for cancellation could not be made by the Tribunal in circumstances where that test was not satisfied;
(ii) whether in fixing a period of time during which a re-registration application could not be made by the appellant before first making a cancellation order, the Tribunal fell into error;
(iii) whether the Tribunal overlooked substantial and consequential evidence and thus made an error of law.
In relation to issue (i), per Basten JA (Leeming and Payne JJA agreeing)
(1) there are significant institutional and functional differences between the regulation of legal practitioners and medical practitioners: [4]
(2) the scope of powers conferred on the Tribunal should not be constrained by implied limitations on their availability: [13]
(3) there is no category of unsatisfactory professional conduct which is not capable, depending on the circumstances, of giving rise to professional misconduct and hence engaging the power of either suspension or cancellation of registration. The only requirement is that it be "sufficiently serious" to justify such an order, a characterisation which must depend upon an evaluative judgment made by the Tribunal: [20]
In relation to issue (i), per Payne JA (Basten and Leeming JJA agreeing)
(4) where a comprehensive statutory regime exists, it is contrary to well established principle to adopt a construction which commences by reference to constraints derived from cases decided under other regimes which terms differ from the National Law: [59]
Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vict) (2001) 207 CLR 72 applied.
(5) there is a relevant distinction between the National Law and cases under former regimes for regulation of medical practitioners and cases related to the professional discipline of legal practitioners: [60]
Ex parte Meehan; Re Medical Practitioners Act [1965] NSWR 30; Qidwai v Brown [1984] 1 NSWLR 100; Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197 distinguished.
(6) there is no occasion to imply a "probably permanently unfit" test into the power to cancel a practitioner's registration under the National Law: [69]-[75]
In relation to issue (ii), per Payne JA and Basten JA (Leeming JA agreeing)
(7) the Tribunal did not err in making an order under s 149C(7) of the National Law that a period of 18 months elapse before an application for re-registration could be made. No error of law was shown: [88]-[89]
In relation to issue (iii), per Payne JA (Basten and Leeming JJA agreeing)
(8) to ignore credible and relevant evidence, which might support an essential step in the reasoning process if the claim were to be upheld, may constitute a constructive failure to exercise the function conferred on the Tribunal: [103]-[105]
Torbey Investments Corporated Pty Ltd v Ferrara [2017] NSWCA 9; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99; [2013] FCA 317 applied.
(9) evidence of the appellant's steps towards rehabilitation and educating herself was taken into account: [106]-[108]
(10) Dr Fang's letter was not taken into account by the Tribunal, but that letter was not substantial and consequential evidence: [112]
Appeal dismissed with order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.
The appellant's actions in improperly prescribing and managing patients who are administered drugs of addiction was a "serious matter":
"[137]… Medical practitioners are in a unique position in enabling members of the public to have access to drugs of addiction and the community is entitled to rely on the integrity and professional expertise of medical practitioners to avoid creating drug addicts and to avoid feeding the habits of drug addicts. This is not necessarily an easy task, but there are well-recognised protocols for the administration of drugs of addiction and well-recognised resources to assist medical practitioners in treating their patients. The respondent clearly failed in all of these areas and did not display any initiative or insight in meeting the challenge which she says she perceived she had when dealing with this cohort of patients. This is a most serious matter and calls into question the ability of the respondent generally to practice medicine safely."
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct "of a very serious nature" and expressed "grave doubts" about her ability to "safely practice medicine". Her behaviour was said to demonstrate "indifference and recklessness": at [139].
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's submission that a practitioner must be found to be "probably permanently unfit to practise" before the Tribunal could cancel her registration, as opposed to suspending her registration. The Tribunal considered that the correct test for whether registration should be cancelled was whether "it can be demonstrated that at the time of the making of the decision that the medical practitioner is unfit to practice medicine safely, and will likely remain so for a significant indefinite period": at [140].
The Tribunal concluded that if it was demonstrated that the medical practitioner was unfit to practise medicine safely, and will likely remain so for a significant indefinite period, then it was in the interests of the protection of the public to cancel her registration. The Tribunal found that as an application for re-registration could be made under the National Law at an appropriate time by a practitioner, the permanence of his or her unfitness was not part of the statutory test. The Tribunal (at [140]) considered that:
"… [i]t would, as a matter of logic, be inappropriate and an abdication of the responsibilities of this Tribunal to refuse to cancel the registration of a practitioner who was determined to be unable to practice medicine safely unless it was thought that he or she was permanently unfit to do so."
In exercising its discretion to cancel the appellant's registration, the Tribunal made the following findings:
1. the appellant was not currently able to practise medicine safely. This was evident in her "susceptibility to environmental factors", including time constraints and dominant patients, her failure to obtain the appropriate statutory authorities and keep adequate records: [141];
2. while of lesser significance, it is important to send a message to other practitioners that the serious and extensive misconduct in which the practitioner engaged will not be tolerated by this Tribunal: [142];
3. while the appellant asserted that she had learned from her past and no longer practises medicine in the manner that led to her misconduct, the Tribunal had no "specific evidentiary material" to corroborate these "bald assertions": [143];
4. despite the appellant's acceptance of guilt, the mitigating factors she raised - lack of experience and reliance on others - in fact strengthened the case for professional misconduct, as she failed to seek out further information and training to gain the knowledge she was lacking. (The Tribunal accepted that the appellant had completed the course "Issues in Prescribing in General Course" conducted by Monash University in about 16 October 2016.)
The appellant submitted that a determination that a practitioner is "probably permanently unfit to practise" still has "work to do" alongside Pt 8 of the National Law. In Pt 8, a medical practitioner's registration can be cancelled, relevantly, where the practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct. Cancellation is mandated under s 149C(3) where the Tribunal is satisfied that a critical condition has been contravened. The appellant submitted that, otherwise, where the preconditions to cancellation have been satisfied, the exercise of the discretionary power of the Tribunal to make protective orders remained unencumbered by the National Law.
The practitioner emphasised that the Tribunal's decision to cancel her registration was based on its finding that she would be unfit to practise for a "significant indefinite period", rather than "indefinitely". It was submitted that the former may be a period of a few years, whereas the latter is substantially longer and akin to "for the foreseeable future". The appellant submitted that the Tribunal accordingly erred in not applying the "probably permanently unfit" to practise test.
The respondent thus submitted that there is no textual or other basis for the practitioner's submission that the permanently unfit condition provides the "bright line" in s 149C(1) between when cancellation is appropriate and when suspension (or some lesser order) should be preferred.
The appellant's submissions tended to assume that the test in the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) and the National Law were relevantly similar. The definitions of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct in the respective statutes, however, bear little relationship to each other. Whether any question of permanency of unfitness arises depends upon the relevant statutory question.
The definition of professional misconduct in the National Law focuses on conduct sufficiently serious to justify suspension or cancellation and does not refer to fitness. Under the National Law, professional misconduct is defined in s 139E to mean:
"(a) unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration; or
(b) more than one instance of unsatisfactory professional conduct that, when the instances are considered together, amount to conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration."
By contrast, s 297 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law defines professional misconduct to include:
"(a) unsatisfactory professional conduct of a lawyer, where the conduct involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence; and
(b) conduct of a lawyer whether occurring in connection with the practice of law or occurring otherwise than in connection with the practice of law that would, if established, justify a finding that the lawyer is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice." (italics added)
The question posed by cases in which the moral character of the practitioner is in issue is essentially whether the practitioner can be trusted by colleagues. If a practitioner cannot be trusted today, the question becomes whether the practitioner could be expected to change his or her character and become trustworthy. In such circumstances the "probably permanently unfit" test for removal from the roll of legal practitioners is explicable. The cases relied upon by the appellant all involved notions of moral culpability.
1. In The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Ritchard the Court dealt with a legal practitioner facing an allegation of professional misconduct applying the "fit and proper person" test arising under the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
2. In NSW Bar Association v Maddocks (Court of Appeal (NSW), 23 August 1988, unreported) the Bar Association sought a declaration, inter alia, that Mr Maddocks was not a fit and proper person to be a member of the Bar.
3. In all of New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA, NSW Bar Association v Murphy (2002) 55 NSWLR 23; [2002] NSWCA 138 and Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales the Court applied the "fit and proper person" test in various contexts.
4. In Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v P Young CJ in Eq dealt with the "good fame and character" test and said, relevantly at [17]:
"(8) The concept of good fame and character has a twofold aspect. Fame refers to a person's reputation in the relevant community, character refers to the person's actual nature: McBride v Walton (NSWCA 15.7.1994 per Kirby P); Clearihan v Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers (1994) 117 FLR 455, 459.
(9) The attitude of the professional association is that the application is of considerable significance.
(10) The question is present fitness, not fitness as at the time of the crime: Prothonotary v Del Castillo [2001] NSWCA 75 at para 71."
To the extent that the appellant relies on what was submitted to be a relevant similarity between the National Law and the Legal Profession Uniform Law, it is sufficient to observe that the regulation of legal practitioners continues to be based upon the test of "good fame and character", unlike the position under the National Law for medical practitioners where there is no such requirement: see ss 16 and 17 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law and r 10 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Admission Rules (NSW).
Meagher JA's observation in Health Care Complaints Commission v Do at [33] is apposite:
"The factors which the Tribunal is required to consider in the exercise of its protective jurisdiction are to be found in the terms of the Law. They may be stated expressly or arise by implication from its subject-matter, scope and purpose: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; 162 CLR 24 at 39-40 (Mason J)."
The statutory language in the National Law does not involve any element of moral turpitude. Unlike the cases relied upon by the appellant here, which all involve some degree of moral culpability, there is no occasion to imply a test of "probably permanently unfit" to reflect an assessment of the character of the practitioner.
There is no textual basis for the appellant's submission that the "probably permanently unfit" condition provides a "bright line" in s 149C(1) between when cancellation is appropriate and when suspension (or some lesser order) should be preferred. The Tribunal here made an express finding that it was satisfied under s 149C(1)(b) that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct. Section 149C(1)(b) is to be contrasted with 149C(1)(c). The former does not refer to the concept of fitness at all, whether permanent or temporary. The latter refers to fitness but does not describe either permanent or temporary unfitness as relevant in enlivening the cancellation power.
The appellant's submission that the "probably permanently unfit" qualification should be implied into the chapeau of s 149C(1) should be rejected. If inserted in the chapeau, the implied qualification would presumably also qualify a power to suspend which is of its nature finite. Even if the qualification were limited to the cancellation power, such an implication would do violence to each of the sub-sections of s 149C(1), in particular ss (a), (b) and (d) which do not refer at all to the concept of "fitness". Section 149C provides a detailed statutory scheme as to when the cancellation power is enlivened and s 149C(1) provides that, "[t]he Tribunal may... cancel the registered health practitioner's registration if the Tribunal is satisfied" of any one of the four matters identified in s 149C(1)(a)-(d). Three of those sub-paragraphs do not refer to fitness at all and the fourth, s 149C(1)(c), is not subject to any "probably permanent" limitation upon the fitness finding required.
The suggested limitation of "probably permanent unfit" in s 149C(1) would also be inconsistent with the separate powers of cancellation in s 149C(2)‑(3) where no such limitation applies. The appellant did not justify why the suggested limitation would apply only to s 149C(1), and not also to ss 149C(2) and (3) which also deal with cancellation, nor did she present any arguments to explain how any such limitation might apply in the context of those sub-sections. Section 149C(2)(a) also refers to the concept of "unfit". If this implied condition were to be read into the chapeau of s 149C(2), there would be two separate conditions of unfitness. The suggested implication is inconsistent with the language of the section as a whole.
A requirement of probably permanent unfitness is also inconsistent with the statute's contemplation that a practitioner is able to re-apply for registration under s 149C(7). That sub-section contemplates that a practitioner may apply to have the question of whether he or she lacks fitness to practise re-visited. The emphasis in such an application is on the practitioner's current fitness to practise, rather than an assessment of "probable permanent unfitness".
As was pointed out by the respondent, the premise of the regime formulated for the regulation of legal practitioners, sought to be applied in the present context, is that a person who is removed from the roll will have to address a finding that he or she was permanently unfit to practise. That heavy burden is, to say the least, difficult to reconcile with the provisions of Division 8.
The suggested implication of the "probably permanently unfit" limitation in s 149C would also need to take account of the detailed definitions of matters comprising unsatisfactory professional conduct defined in s 139B. It will be recalled that professional misconduct is defined in s 139E as "unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration". The construction argument advanced by the appellant did not address how the suggested implication was consistent with the various ways in which unsatisfactory professional conduct is defined by s 139B.
The scheme of the National Law, and in particular Pt 7, Registration of Health Practitioners, and Pt 8, Health, Performance and Conduct, seem to me to be inconsistent with the proposed implication. To the extent that fitness is addressed in these provisions it is not addressed by reference to permanent or temporary unfitness. An implied requirement that the practitioner be "probably permanently unfit" before having his or her registration cancelled is inconsistent with the detailed registration and accreditation scheme established by Pts 7 and 8 of the National Law.
There is no occasion to imply a "probably permanently unfit" limitation to the cancellation power in s 149C of the National Law. In so concluding, I agree with Basten JA's additional reasons.
Ground 1 of the notice of appeal should be rejected.
The second complaint made by the appellant was that the Tribunal failed to take into account a letter dated 2 September 2016, tendered without objection from her mentor, Dr Allen Fang. This letter was Exhibit B at the Tribunal's hearing. The contents of the letter are as follows :
"I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agree to be bound by it.
I came to know Dr Mengyi Chen during the period of March 2010 to September 2011 when she was working as a general practitioner in Castle Towers Medical Practice where I started working, also as GP, since year 2006.
We are both in a Sydney Doctors' Social Forum where clinical cases and health issues were often discussed for the purpose of professional development and performance improvement.
Since 13 July 2016, I have had several meetings with Dr Mengyi Chen. On 31/08/2016, I reviewed Dr Chen's medical records of 10 patients of Campsie Medical Centre, and the Health Practitioner Regulation (NSW) Regulation 2010 and specifically schedule 2 of same.
Having regard to the record keeping requirements set out in the Regulation, including in particular clause 7 and schedule 2 thereof, I consider that Dr Mengyi Chen is currently maintaining medical records in accordance with the Regulation."
The appellant submitted that the Tribunal's conclusion that there was "no specific evidentiary material" supporting her assertion that she had learned from her past mistakes was an error, since Dr Fang's letter clearly provided that support. It was submitted that the error was important and material to the Tribunal's decision because Dr Fang's letter "constituted not just evidence of reformed and safe practice but was corroborative of the appellant's evidence that she had established a mentor relationship with Dr Fang". The appellant submitted that the Tribunal's failure to take this into account led directly to the conclusion that she was not currently able to practise medicine safely, and therefore her registration should be cancelled.
If the Court concluded that Dr Fang's letter was not taken into account by the Tribunal, it was submitted that the letter was not important evidence. It was, on its face, bare assertion, bereft of reasoning or supporting material.
The appellant's complaint is about the finding at [144]:
"We observe that a claim that guilt has been accepted and there is remorse is subverted where the respondent goes on to provide a series of excuses. In this case, the mitigating factors as presented - influence of others, lack of sufficient experience - were not supported by the evidence. Ironically, the evidence submitted for mitigation merely strengthened the case for professional misconduct - that is, not diagnosing in the interests of the patient, doing what appeared minimally acceptable in the practice, and not seeking out information and training to address gaps in knowledge. Indeed, on the evidence she had only undertaken and completed the requirements of the course 'Issues in Prescribing in General Course' conducted by Monash University in about 16 October 2016."
All this finding does is to recite, as had earlier been found, that the appellant completed the Monash University course in October 2016. The appellant accepted that this complaint rested on a finding that paragraph [144] should be understood as encompassing a finding that no other course had been completed. Paragraph [144] of the Tribunal's decision should not be construed in this way. In context, it should be understood as providing simply that there had been a long hearing, then a gap for submissions and there was a course completed in the gap.
The letter from Dr Fang is in a different category. Although the mentoring relationship with Dr Fang was mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraph [90], the contents of the letter were not specifically adverted to by the Tribunal. The Tribunal said at [90]:
"She also has a mentor relationship with Dr Allen Fang. She has attended weekly meetings with her mentor from 13 July 2016 and observed him providing treatment to his patients including those with pain management issues. She has also discussed the complaints brought against her with the mentor. In oral evidence, but not in her written statement, the respondent said that Dr Fang had inspected a number of her clinical records which had been selected by him. We note that neither Dr Cai nor Dr Fang provided a written statement, nor did they give evidence concerning their involvement with the respondent."
This finding does not make clear that Dr Fang's letter, as distinct from the appellant's evidence about her being mentored by Dr Fang, was considered by the Tribunal. In paragraph [143] the Tribunal returned to this issue:
"We acknowledge that the respondent has asserted that she has learned from her past mistakes and no longer practices medicine in the manner which has given rise to these proceedings. She asserts that she no longer deals with patients with drug addiction problems. However, apart from these bald assertions we have no specific evidentiary material upon which to accept what the respondent now says. We do not know, and we have not been told, whether the respondent currently treats patients who are suffering from chronic long-standing pain, and whose condition might give rise to the same problems as the respondent encountered at the Dundas Valley practice. We have not been taken to the respondent's clinical records at Campsie to demonstrate that they are fully compliant with the relevant Regulation. The evidence of Dr Patel cannot be relied upon for the reasons which we have earlier stated. The letter from Dr Yang does not sufficiently touch upon these matters to enable us to gain any corroborative support for the bald generalisations made by the respondent. And, Drs Cai and Fang have not furnished any supportive or corroborative material of the respondent's assertions."
I do not accept the respondent's submission that the reference to "Dr Yang" in the penultimate sentence is a typographical error and should be a reference to "Dr Fang". Dr Yang wrote a letter capable of meeting the description in the penultimate sentence. The Tribunal had elsewhere been careful to distinguish Doctors Yang and Fang. The absence of a specific reference to Dr Fang's letter in the last sentence of paragraph [143] leads me to conclude that this evidence was overlooked by the Tribunal.
I would not conclude, however, that Dr Fang's letter was substantial and consequential evidence such that the Tribunal's failure to refer to it was an error of law. This is for the following reasons.
1. The letter (set out at [94] above) simply contained bald generalisations. Dr Fang's letter did not provide corroborative material of the appellant's assertions that "she has learned from her past mistakes and no longer practices medicine in the manner which has given rise to these proceedings".
2. The letter related only to a very limited aspect of the appellant's work at Campsie, with 10 patients.
3. Dr Fang's letter does not identify any particular records he reviewed or describe the expertise he applied in reviewing those records under the standard he described before baldly expressing the view that those records were compliant.
4. Dr Fang's letter does not expose any reasoning process.
5. The fact that Dr Fang expressed bald generalisations about the appellant's current compliance at Campsie was of no real consequence in this case.
The relative unimportance of Dr Fang's letter is underlined by the fact that counsel very experienced in this area who appeared for the appellant before the Tribunal did not mention Dr Fang's letter at all in his closing written submissions and mentioned the topic of Dr Fang, but not the letter, only in passing in his oral submissions:
"[Counsel]: She doesn't fall into that category in my submission. She genuinely has attempted to address her failures. She has acknowledged them. She has undertaken training to address them. She has engaged a series of mentors to try and assist her. She's had Dr Fang, one of the mentors, do an assessment or an audit of her medical records based upon I think ten randomly selected patients who has satisfied himself that her record keeping currently meets the required standards."
Dr Fang's letter was not substantial or consequential evidence in the case. The letter asserted that Dr Fang had read and complied with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct. The contents of the letter, however, revealed that this was not so. The letter did not disclose any reasoning process in expressing his opinion that the appellant's medical record keeping was now in compliance with the Health Practitioner Regulation (NSW) Regulation and specifically Sch 2 of same. The Campsie medical records on which the opinion was said to be based were not produced or referred to, other than by bare assertion.
The appellant's submission that Dr Fang's letter was "highly corroborative" of the appellant's evidence should be rejected. The Court was not provided with the documents either doctor reviewed, but a comparison of Dr Yang's letter which contains brief, bald assertions about the practitioner's "good clinical skills" with Dr Fang's letter makes it likely that the Tribunal would have dealt with Dr Fang's letter, had it not overlooked it, in the same way that it dealt with that of Dr Yang. That is, even if there was an error in the Tribunal not referring to the evidence of Dr Fang's letter, I do not consider that if the error had not occurred the Tribunal's decision might have been different: Joseph v NSW Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCA 31 at [67] per Macfarlan JA with whom Basten and Ward JJA agreed.
It is also relevant to bear in mind that the appellant herself explained that her record keeping at Dundas was quite different to her record keeping at Campsie. For example, the appellant accepted that:
"I paid more attention, I pay more effort … in Campsie in terms of recording and I pay less attention in terms of recording medical records, maintaining in Dundas Valley."
She gave quite detailed evidence about the different systems at Campsie as opposed to Dundas Valley. All of this evidence tends to confirm that Dr Fang's letter was not material to any aspect of the determination of the respondent's complaints.
There was no error of law in the Tribunal's failure to consider Dr Fang's letter. Ground 2A is not made out.