• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Cited legislation

3 cited instruments linked from this judgment.

The remaining allegation concerned patient FF. In substance, it was that the dose of triiodothyronine, or T3, used by Dr Ash was too high and was steadily increased despite biochemical evidence that the dose was too high ([7]). The reasons say the Board's submissions located the relevant period at Vitality Hub between March 2015 and April 2016, while the formal finding described the wider period as May 2010 to 20 April 2016. Those are the date formulations used in the judgment.

Dr Ash admitted the remaining allegation. The Tribunal considered her admission and the expert evidence in the materials and found the allegation proven ([9]). The Board and Dr Ash jointly proposed that the conduct be characterised as unsatisfactory professional performance under s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) ([13] and following reasons).

The case also had a lengthy regulatory history. In May 2016, the Board began an investigation and notified Dr Ash of proposed immediate action. Dr Ash undertook not to practise while that process continued. In June 2016, the Board imposed conditions, including prescribing restrictions, an audit and supervision. In July 2016, VCAT stayed that immediate-action decision on undertakings that included specialist consultation for hormone prescribing, compliance with specialist advice, audit and supervision. The Tribunal understood that Dr Ash had not practised general medicine since giving that undertaking ([14] and following reasons).

The parties sought a decision on the papers. Their agreed proposal included a reprimand and a condition requiring Indirect II supervision for 12 months. The Tribunal accepted the proposed finding, but assessed the proposed orders independently. It declined the reprimand and imposed the supervision condition with a one-year review period.

One important limit to the case is the atrial fibrillation episode. The Tribunal recorded that FF had atrial fibrillation and was admitted to hospital on or about 8 December 2015, but the Board did not allege that Dr Ash's T3 treatment caused the episode or significantly increased the risk of it ([10]–[11]). The reasons also mention the independent expert's view that staying awake, driving and consuming three energy drinks were the most likely trigger, rather than treating that view as a finding that T3 caused the episode ([12]).

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's starting point was the statutory definition of unsatisfactory professional performance. Section 5, as reproduced in the reasons, concerns whether the practitioner's knowledge, skill, judgment or care fell below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of equivalent training or experience ([13]). The finding here was tied to a specific prescribing failure: an excessively high T3 dose that was steadily increased despite biochemical evidence that it was too high. The Tribunal relied on Dr Ash's admission and expert evidence, rather than making broader findings about all the allegations initially referred ([5]–[9]).

The reasons distinguish the finding from the sanction. The parties' agreement supported the proposed characterisation, but did not determine what orders VCAT had to make. The Tribunal stated that its task was to decide whether the findings and orders were appropriate. It referred to the High Court's discussion of agreed penalty submissions through the passage quoted from Medical Board of Australia v Duncan [2017] VCAT 912 at [32]. That passage recognises the public-policy benefit of agreed submissions while stressing that agreement cannot supplant the Tribunal's own duty.

The Tribunal assessed the two proposed orders separately. It treated a reprimand as a serious public professional rebuke, relying on its discussion in Medical Board of Australia v Lai [2011] VCAT 1754 at [16]. It declined to reprimand Dr Ash because the final allegation was limited after most particulars and two allegations had been withdrawn. It considered a reprimand disproportionate to that conduct and did not consider censure necessary for specific deterrence. The Tribunal also considered that Dr Ash's experience over the preceding four years would itself provide any necessary deterrence.

The proposed supervision condition had a different function. The Tribunal considered it appropriately protective both for the public and for Dr Ash, who was contemplating a return after an extended absence. It would offer an opportunity to discuss patient management, identify any flaws in performance and guard against inappropriate prescribing of the kind found in the case. It was therefore suitable even though a reprimand was not.

The resulting condition applied across Dr Ash's medical practice. It required an approved registered specialist general practitioner as supervisor. The supervisor had to be accessible by telephone or other telecommunication, available to attend in person or virtually when necessary, and consult with Dr Ash fortnightly for the first two months and monthly for the remaining ten months. Dr Ash had to provide clinical records within 24 hours of a request. The condition also set out requirements for nominating a primary and alternate supervisors, acknowledgements, and quarterly reports.

The Tribunal's approach is consequently not that agreed outcomes are automatically adopted, or that a particular condition follows from every prescribing failure. It examined the narrowed conduct, the practitioner's circumstances as described in the materials, and the distinct purposes served by censure and supervision.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to change the statutory definition of unsatisfactory professional performance. It applies the s 5 definition to the admitted conduct and expert evidence. Nor does it create a new general test for medical prescribing. Its legal contribution in this case is principally its application of established principles to a particular agreed record.

Before this decision, the Tribunal says the principles governing determinations were well-established. It describes the purpose of determinations as protective, not punitive, with public protection and maintaining professional standards as central considerations. It also identifies specific deterrence and general deterrence as relevant considerations, including insight, remorse, rehabilitation progress and risk of re-offending in the assessment of specific deterrence.

The reasons refer to earlier VCAT decisions, including Secretary to the Department of Planning and Community Development v Muto [2011] VCAT 328 at [16] and Medical Board of Australia v McGrath [2014] VCAT 641 at [19]–[21], in describing the background to the approach to agreed proposed orders. The Tribunal then quotes Duncan, which in turn refers to Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46. The central proposition expressed in the quoted passage is that agreed submissions can have public-policy value, but do not relieve the Tribunal of deciding the conduct and orders for itself.

After this decision, the principles stated in the reasons remain expressed as applications of those earlier authorities and of the National Law. The supplied judgment does not establish whether a later court or tribunal adopted, limited or departed from Medical Board of Australia v Ash. Nothing in the supplied material supports a claim about its later treatment or its status as binding precedent. It is a VCAT decision, and the reasons should be read for the particular statutory setting and facts addressed.

The decision also demonstrates an important distinction in regulatory outcomes: a finding of unsatisfactory professional performance did not automatically require a reprimand. The Tribunal made that finding while refusing the proposed censure, because it considered the reprimand disproportionate to the remaining allegation and found that supervision better addressed the protective needs it identified. This is an application of its stated principles, not a universal rule that reprimands are inappropriate where allegations have been narrowed.

Key passages with plain-English translation

• The Tribunal said the remaining allegation was that the T3 dose was too high and steadily increased despite biochemical evidence of that problem ([7]). In plain English, the finding was not simply that the treatment later became controversial. It concerned the dose and its continued escalation despite clinical test evidence.
• The Tribunal said the Board did not allege that the treatment caused FF's atrial fibrillation or significantly increased his risk of developing it ([11]). This limits what can be attributed to the case. The finding of unsatisfactory performance was not a finding that the prescribing caused the hospital admission.
• The Tribunal noted that the Board withdrew allegations after further expert evidence and said the withdrawals were appropriate in light of that evidence. It also observed that the view of a National Board can properly change as evidence develops. The practical point is that the adjudicated case was the narrowed one, not the original set of allegations.
• The Tribunal stated that the relevant question was whether it was persuaded that the proposed orders were appropriate, rather than whether they were within a permissible range. In plain English, joint agreement did not bind VCAT; it had to reach its own view.
• The Tribunal described a reprimand as a public professional rebuke and declined to impose one. It considered the order disproportionate to the limited allegation and not necessary for specific deterrence. That reasoning explains why the finding remained serious enough to warrant a registration condition, but not the further public censure proposed by the parties.
• The supervision order was directed to practice and patient management. The supervisor would be available for consultation, could request clinical records, and would provide an ongoing point of review. The Tribunal said the arrangement could help Dr Ash reintegrate into practice, address identified flaws, and guard against inappropriate prescribing.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a regulatory proceeding where a medical practitioner admits a defined prescribing failure, expert evidence supports the allegation, and the regulator and practitioner jointly propose findings and orders. It illustrates that VCAT will assess the proposed outcome itself, including where the practitioner is represented and the proposal is agreed.

It may be particularly useful to consider where the initial referral is broader than the case ultimately proved. Here, two allegations and most particulars concerning the third patient were withdrawn before determination. The Tribunal assessed the reprimand against the narrowed case, not against the seriousness of allegations no longer pursued.

The facts also involved a lengthy absence from practice following immediate action and undertakings. The Tribunal considered the condition in light of a proposed return to seeing patients. It saw supervision as a way to support re-entry and to reduce the risk of the type of prescribing found. This makes the decision relevant to questions about practice supervision following an absence, although the judgment does not state that every practitioner returning after a break requires supervision.

The decision does not support treating a patient's adverse event as proof of causation where causation is not alleged or established. The atrial fibrillation was part of the factual background, but the Board did not allege that T3 treatment caused it or materially increased its risk ([10]–[12]). A case involving a proven causal link, a different degree of harm, a different prescribing history or different expert evidence would require separate analysis.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no subsequent decisions discussing Medical Board of Australia v Ash. Accordingly, its later treatment cannot be determined from the source material provided. There is no basis here to say that it has been followed, distinguished, criticised or overruled.

The judgment itself identifies decisions it considered when addressing agreed orders and reprimands. It refers to Muto and McGrath as part of the background to the proper approach to agreed determinations, quotes Duncan's explanation of the Tribunal's independent role, and cites Lai concerning the significance of a reprimand. The footnote to Duncan also lists other decisions as examples of related authority. Those are authorities considered or mentioned by the Tribunal in Ash, not later treatment of Ash.

For research purposes, Ash should therefore be cited for the propositions it actually states and applies: the Tribunal independently determines whether agreed findings and orders are appropriate; it may reject one proposed order while adopting another; and the proportionality of censure can be assessed against the conduct ultimately established. Any proposition about later judicial endorsement or the decision's present precedential status requires sources beyond the supplied judgment.

Still-open questions

The reasons resolve the agreed allegation and proposed determinations, but do not provide a detailed clinical account of the prescribing history, laboratory results, dose amounts or the expert's full reasoning. The judgment states the conclusion that the dose was too high and increased despite biochemical evidence, but does not reproduce the underlying clinical data. It is therefore not possible from this source to identify a specific dosage threshold or a detailed clinical standard for T3 prescribing.

The reasons also do not decide whether the prescribing contributed to FF's atrial fibrillation. The Board did not allege causation or a significantly increased risk, and the Tribunal confined its finding accordingly. The expert's view about the likely trigger is reported as background, not as a separately determined causation issue.

The decision does not explain why the reprimand was included in the parties' joint proposal, or provide a comprehensive assessment of all potentially relevant factors such as Dr Ash's insight, remorse, rehabilitation or future risk. It states the general relevance of such matters, but the summary of the material does not set out detailed findings on each. The reasoning on the reprimand is focused on the narrowed allegation, proportionality and specific deterrence.

Finally, the condition is specific to this practitioner and the return-to-practice circumstances described in the proceeding. The judgment does not decide how the condition would operate in every practice setting, whether later modification would be appropriate, or what evidence would be required at a review. Those matters are not resolved by the one-year review period itself.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.

• comply with the Code of Conduct;
• consult with a specialist endocrinologist in relation to her treatment plan for any current or new patient to whom hormones are prescribed by her;
• only prescribe in accordance with the advice received from the consultant specialist;
• submit to an audit of her practice; and
• practise under supervision.