© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2011] NSWCA 353
Court of Appeal (NSW)
2012-10-17
Staff J
Original judgment source is linked above.
JUDGMENT 1On 15 February 2012, the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales ("the Tribunal") published its decision in respect of three complaints brought by the Health Care Complaints Commission ("HCCC") concerning Mr Roman Hasil ("the respondent"), who had previously been registered as a medical practitioner: Health Care Complaints Commission v Hasil [2012] NSWMT 1. 2The HCCC alleged that the respondent, a former registered medical practitioner having previously been registered under the Medical Practice Act 1992 ("the Act") (now repealed) was guilty of "unsatisfactory professional conduct" within the meaning of s 36(1)(a), s 36(1)(b) and s 36(1)(m) of the Act and/or "professional misconduct" within the meaning of s 37 of the Act in that he had: "(i) Demonstrated that the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised, by him in the practice of medicine is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; (ii) Contravened a provision of the Act, namely section 127B; (iii) Contravened provisions of the regulations, namely the Medical Practice Regulation 1998 (NSW) and the Medical Practice Regulation 2003 (NSW); and/or (iv) Engaged in improper and unethical conduct relating to the practice of medicine." 3The Tribunal determined three complaints. 4In summary, Complaint one involved allegations that the respondent failed to record sufficient information concerning each patient's care and treatment; inadequacy and failure relating to note taking regarding each patient; rudeness and the use of inappropriate language during the course of treatment of various patients; performance of a procedure on one patient without wearing gloves; failure to introduce oxytocin (Syntocinon®), (a drug used to induce labour at or beyond term in maternity hospitals), at a reasonable time in respect of one patient, and failure to notify the New South Wales Medical Board ("the Board") in writing within seven days of the fact that he had been convicted of an offence contrary to s 127B of the Act. 5This section provides: "127B Practitioners to notify convictions, criminal findings and charges (1) A registered medical practitioner must notify the Board in writing within 7 days after: (a) the practitioner is convicted of an offence or made the subject of a sex/violence criminal finding for an offence, in this State or elsewhere, giving details of the conviction or criminal finding and any penalty imposed for the offence, or (b) criminal proceedings are commenced against the practitioner in respect of a sex or violence offence alleged to have been committed, in this State or elsewhere, in the course of the practice or purported practice of medicine. (2) This section does not apply in respect of an offence if the offence is an excluded offence." 6The Tribunal found in respect of Complaint one that the respondent failed to record sufficient information concerning six patients' care and treatment. Particulars that challenged Mr Hasil's surgical or clinical techniques were not established. Mr Hasil admitted in respect of a number of particulars that he failed to record that he was the person who made medical entries in the patients' records, together with the time and any discussions he had with the patients. In respect of one patient, Mr Hasil admitted he failed to record any plan of treatment. The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to comply with the Medical Practice Regulation, in particular Reg 6 Sch 2 cl 1 and cl 2 and that the respondent was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. 7Complaint 2 which alleged that the respondent was "not of good character" was not established. 8Complaint 3 alleged that the respondent: "... suffers an impairment in that the practitioner suffers from a physical or mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder which detrimentally affects, or is likely to detrimentally affect, the practitioner's physical or mental capacity to practice medicine." 9This complaint was proven. 10The respondent's medical registration was suspended in February 2008 and his name removed from the roll of registered medical practitioners on 11 April 2009 due to his "failure to pay the annual renewal fee". 11In light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in King v Health Care Complaints Commission [2011] NSWCA 353 where it was held that the duty of procedural fairness requires this Tribunal to provide the respondent with an opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions on appropriate consequential or protective orders following upon the Tribunal's findings, the matter was listed for hearing on 17 October 2012.
HCCC's evidence 12Ms S McNaughton SC, who appeared for the HCCC, tendered the following material in respect of the determination by the Tribunal of appropriate orders: (i)report from Associate Professor Wayne GJ Reid, Clinical Neuopsychologist, Clinical Psychologist dated 22 November 2011; (ii)report of Associate Professor Reid dated 12 May 2012; (iii)letter from Michelle Sloane, Corporate Manager, The Sydney Private Hospital to the HCCC dated 17 July 2012; (iv)letter from Mr Gavin Brunker, Director of Nursing of the Sydney Private Hospital dated 17 July 2012 to the HCCC; (v)statement of Mr Peter Dess, Registered Nurse, dated 17 July 2012, employed at the Sydney Private Hospital. 13Associate Professor Reid was called to give evidence. He was not required for cross-examination. In his report of 22 November 2011, Associate Professor Reid stated that he had undertaken a neuropsychological assessment of the respondent. The tests administered and the results were: " Results:
Evidence of the respondent 22The respondent, who was self-represented, advised the Tribunal that he did not wish to provide any evidence to the Tribunal.
Consideration 23In determining the appropriate protective orders in this matter, the Tribunal is required to take into account that the overriding objectives and principles of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) ("the National Law"). They are as found in s 3(2)(a) of the National Law and are: "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". 24As the Tribunal has already observed, the respondent's medical registration was suspended in February 2008 and his name removed from the roll of medical practitioners on 11 April 2009 due to his "failure to pay the annual renewal fee". 25Section 149C of the National Law gives this Tribunal the power to suspend or cancel the registration of a registered health practitioner. 26Section 149C(4) of the National Law provides: "(4) If the person is no longer registered, the Tribunal may- (a) decide that if the person were still registered the Tribunal would have suspended or cancelled the person's registration; and (b) if the Tribunal would have cancelled the person's registration, decide that the person is disqualified from being registered in the health profession for a specified period or until specified conditions have been complied with; and (c) require the National Board with which the person was registered to record the fact that the Tribunal would have suspended or cancelled the person's registration in the National Register kept by the Board." 27Section 163 of the National Law provides that the appropriate body to review any order or conditions is the Medical Council of New South Wales ("the Council"). (See also s 41B). 28In respect of appropriate orders that should be made, Ms McNaughton submitted that: "We would be seeking that Mr Hasil should be disqualified from being registered until specified conditions have been complied with and they should be in the terms of the sorts of conditions mentioned by Professor Reid in his report of November 2011, that is, that Mr Hasil undertake further rehabilitation, psychological intervention and referral to a rehabilitation provider for assistance in finding employment in the open job market; and that he be referred for follow up neurological psychological assessment in whatever is the appropriate period of time following a period of intensive rehabilitation; and his case be referred back to the Medical Council for review of his capacity to function as a registered medical practitioner under the impaired registrants programme or something to that effect. Of course, the submissions are largely directed to the findings by the Tribunal that the practitioner, Mr Hasil, is impaired." 29Ms McNaughton also submitted that the HCCC would be seeking "some sort of random [alcohol] testing" as part of the review conducted by the Council. 30The respondent advised the Tribunal he did not wish to make any submissions in response to those made by Ms McNaughton. 31Associate Professor Reid concluded in his report of 22 November 2011 that: " Considering the nature and extent of his higher cognitive deficits it is felt he is impaired in regard to his neurocognitive functioning and his ability to practice medicine is currently compromised. It is recommended Mr Hasil have further rehabilitation, psychological intervention and referral to a rehabilitation provider for assistance in finding employment in the open job market. Furthermore it is recommended he be referred for follow up neuropsychological assessment in 12 months time following a period of intensive rehabilitation and his case be referred back to the Medical Council for review of his capacity to function as a registered medical practitioner under the Impaired Registrants program." 32The Tribunal has neither been provided with a current report in respect of the respondent from Associate Professor Reid nor any other clinical neuropsychologist. Nor has the Tribunal been provided with any other relevant evidence by the respondent regarding his current health. 33The Tribunal in its earlier decision found that the respondent was suffering from an impairment. Taking into account the evidence relied upon and the Tribunal's obligation to ensure the protection of the public, the Tribunal has reached the conclusion that pursuant to s 149C(4) that Mr Hasil is disqualified from being a medical practitioner until a specified condition has been complied with by Mr Hasil. 34The condition which the Tribunal imposes is that if future neurological testing demonstrates that the nature of the respondent's impairment has improved such that he could resume practice as a medical practitioner with appropriate conditions such as supervision, the Tribunal is of the view that in such circumstances the respondent could make an application for re-registration to the Council. 35The Tribunal is mindful that Associate Professor Reid recommended the respondent be referred for follow up neuropsychological assessment 12 months from 22 November 2011 following a period of intensive rehabilitation. 36The Tribunal does not propose to add as a condition that respondent undertake a period of intensive rehabilitation. That will be a matter for the respondent which may, of course, impact upon and affect any future neurological tests. It follows that it will be incumbent for the respondent to demonstrate as a result of neuropscyhological testing that his health has improved such that the Council could be satisfied that he has the capacity to function as a medical practitioner.
Costs 37Ms McNaughton sought that the respondent pay the costs of the HCCC. Pursuant to s 175B of the National Law: "The responsible tribunal may make any order about costs it considers appropriate for the proceedings." 38Schedule 5D of the National Law provides: "13 Tribunal may award costs [NSW] (1) A Tribunal may order the complainant (if any), the registered health practitioner or student concerned, or any other person entitled to appear (whether as of right or because leave to appear has been granted) at an inquiry or appeal before the Tribunal to pay costs to another person as decided by the Tribunal. (2) When an order for costs has taken effect, the Tribunal is, on application by the person to whom the costs have been awarded, to issue a certificate setting out the terms of the order and stating that the order has taken effect. (3) The person in whose favour costs are awarded may file the certificate in the District Court, together with an affidavit by the person as to the amount of the costs unpaid, and the Registrar of the District Court must enter judgment for the amount unpaid together with any fees paid for filing the certificate." 39The respondent admitted 22 particulars and denied 18 particulars, of which 10 were established. 40Complaint two was not established and Complaint three was proven. 41The Tribunal therefore proposes to order an apportionment of the cost to reflect the result of the proceedings. 42The respondent is to pay 70 per cent of the costs incurred by the HCCC.
Orders
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: 09 November 2012
Health Care Complaints Commission
Hasil