The applicant submitted that the respondent's mental state at the time of misconduct demonstrated an understanding of his actions, which is particularly serious given his dishonesty towards the Board and failure to keep appropriate medical records that the respondent does not appear to fully appreciate.
[2]
The respondent, in reliance on evidence of his treating medical professionals, submitted that his mental health situation had significantly improved since the period of misconduct, and his resultant likelihood of committing similar conduct in the future was very low.
[3]
The Tribunal finds that the respondent's conduct demonstrates a blatant disregard of the previous orders imposed;
The Tribunal finds that the respondent has engaged in dishonest and misleading conduct;
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent has sufficient and sincere insight into his conduct;
The respondent is reprimanded;
The respondent's registration as a medical practitioner is cancelled;
The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of eighteen months;
The respondent is prohibited from providing any health services until re-registered as a health practitioner; and
The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs incidental to these proceedings.
[4]
Health practitioners - Complaint by the Medical Board of Australia - Professional misconduct - Failure to provide good patient care - Failure to disclose potential conflict of interest - Financial and commercial dealings with a patient - False and misleading statements to authorities - Failure to comply with commitment to the Board - Failure to comply with conditions of registration - Registration cancelled - Disqualified from applying for registration for eighteen months - Prohibited from providing any health service until re-registered - Reprimand
[5]
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 Sch 2 s 5, 193, 196
Ms A Schatz on the instructions of Ms E Homes, Minter Ellison, for the applicant
[25]
Mrs M Shaw KC with Mr N Crouch on the instructions of Mr G Blackmore, Wallmans Lawyers, for the respondent
[26]
This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.
[27]
On 18 March 2022, the Medical Board of Australia (Board) filed an initiating application alleging professional misconduct pursuant to s 193 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) being Schedule 2 to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA) by the respondent, Dr Mark Rogers. That application was amended on 16 February 2023 (AIA) alleging the following:
[28]
Allegation One - Failing to provide good patient care
[29]
The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law in that, between 11 April 2018 and 11 February 2019, he failed to provide good patient care in that he provided inadequate treatment and/or inappropriate advice about treatment to:
[30]
Allegation Two - Failing to disclose potential conflict of interest
[31]
The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law in that, between 11 April 2018 and 11 February 2019, he failed to inform:
[32]
Allegation Three - Financial and commercial dealings with a patient
[33]
The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law in that, between in or around March 2017 and on or about 30 June 2020, he engaged in financial and commercial dealings with his patient, CBV.
[34]
Allegation Four - Providing false or misleading information
[35]
The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law in that, on 20 March 2017, he provided information to the Board which was false or misleading in a material particular.
[36]
Allegation Five - Breach of commitment to Board
[37]
The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law in that, between on or about 21 March 2017 and in or around August 2020, he breached a commitment he gave to the Board, by suggesting to patients that they may benefit from treatment with low-level laser therapy (LLLT).
[38]
Allegation Six - Breach of condition on registration
[39]
The respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a) and/or (b) and/or (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law in that, he breached a condition on his registration.
[40]
On 20 July 2022 and 21 March 2025, the respondent filed responses to the initiating applications admitting the following conduct alleged occurring between March 2017 and August 2020, namely that:
[41]
2.1 He failed to provide good patient care to three patients identified as MZJ, XPJ and JBC between 11 April 2018 and 11 February 2019 by providing inadequate treatment and/or inappropriate advice about treatment to them;
[42]
2.2 He failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest to each of those patients by failing to inform them about an interest that could affect patient care, or that could be perceived to affect patient care;
[43]
2.3 He engaged in financial and commercial dealings with a patient named CBV between in or about March 2017 and June 2020;
[44]
2.4 He provided information to the Board by written correspondence dated 20 March 2017 (2017 letter) that was false or misleading; and
[45]
2.5 He breached a commitment which he gave to the Board in the 2017 letter on several occasions between March 2017 and August 2020.
[46]
As the respondent has admitted most of the alleged conduct, the need for a contested hearing was obviated. The parties requested the Tribunal to determine the matters referred under s 193(1)(a) of the National Law and accordingly submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. A hearing was convened for that purpose and on 12 January 2024, the Tribunal made findings to the effect that:
[47]
3.1 The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in relation to Allegation 1 of the AIA;
[48]
3.2 The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in relation to Allegation 2 of the AIA;
[49]
3.3 The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct in relation to Allegation 3 of the AIA;
[50]
3.4 The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in relation to Allegation 4 of the AIA;
[51]
3.5 The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in relation to Allegation 5 of the AIA; and
[52]
3.6 The respondent has engaged in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in relation to Allegation 6 of the AIA.
[53]
Our statement of reasons and findings[1] regarding the respondent's conduct and the characterisation of that conduct are published separately, but we wish to correct the findings regarding Allegation 6 to accordingly reflect the parties' Agreed Statement of Facts (which was amended regarding some typographical errors) (Exhibit A-3). In particular, we now record that it was agreed by the parties that the respondent breached an expectation by the Board as a result of an undertaking he gave in a letter dated 20 March 2017 which his lawyers sent to Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) that he would only answer questions by patients about the benefits of LLLT "in general terms" and would confine his interest in LLLT/CLT to "academic literature, debate and reported research", rather than breaching a condition imposed on his registration as alleged. The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence properly supports the agreed factual position reached and also accepts the submissions of Mr Schatz for the Board that Allegations 5 and 6 have been blended and that whether a finding of breaching a condition or breaching an expectation or undertaking is made, in either case, the characterisation of the conduct regarding Allegation 6 amounts to professional misconduct as agreed by the parties.[2]
A further hearing was conducted on 22 May 2025 to determine what appropriate sanctions should be imposed on Dr Rogers in light of the conduct found. The parties prepared an Agreed Book of Documents which was tendered at the outset and received into evidence (Exhibit A-4). The Tribunal was also provided with the parties' detailed written submissions and Lists of Authorities. The Tribunal received the affidavit of the respondent Mark John McDonald Rogers sworn on 15 May 2025 and heard his oral evidence and the evidence of Dr Christopher Branson, the psychiatrist who has been supervising the respondent since 17 November 2014. The respondent tendered (without objection) two further documents, namely a letter from MDA National Insurance dated 9 April 2019 (Exhibit R-1) and email correspondence from Dr Andrew Hughes of Morphettville Medical Centre dated 15 May 2025 (Exhibit R-2). We have taken all of these documents into account.
[54]
Dr Rogers obtained his basic medical qualifications from the Flinders University in 1988, completing his internship at the Royal Adelaide Hospital the following year. He became a vocationally registered General Practitioner in 1997.
The respondent purchased a private General Practice in Adelaide establishing five general practices in Adelaide and three in Queensland between 1989 and 2000, employing about 32 doctors and 60 staff. These practices were sold to a corporate medical group who then employed him as the General Manager in South Australia. The respondent did not practice as a clinician during this period.
In 2003, Dr Rogers left his role as a General Manager and returned to clinical practice within the corporate medical group before opening his own medical clinic in Adelaide in 2009. He then opened clinics in Melbourne and Sydney which ceased operating 18 months later.
In 2013, Dr Rogers commenced practising at a suburban medical centre (which underwent a name change) where he continues to currently practise.
The respondent has a longstanding history of bipolar disorder which was first diagnosed in 1998. He is currently under the care of a General Practitioner, Dr Ponte, a psychiatrist, Dr Branson and a psychologist, Dr Pam Carroll, all of whom review Dr Rogers on a regular basis. It should be noted that Dr Rogers has given written undertakings to the Board, the most recent dated 3 December 2021, which imposes limitations on his practice, requires supervision by another registered health practitioner and also requires him to be regularly treated by his psychiatrist and General Practitioner.[3]
[55]
Between October 2008 and November 2020, there have been a number of notifications to AHPRA, the most recent concerning conduct of a similar nature resulting in disciplinary proceedings and sanctions imposed by the former South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal.[4]
[56]
The applicant submits that the Tribunal ought to make orders:
[57]
12.1 reprimanding the respondent pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law;
[58]
12.2 cancelling the respondent's general and specialist registrations pursuant;
[59]
12.3 disqualifying the respondent from re-applying for registration for a period of two years pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law;
[60]
12.4 prohibiting the respondent from providing, whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer, and whether directly or indirectly, any health service until he is granted a registration as a health practitioner under the National Law pursuant to s 196(4)(b) of the National Law;
[61]
12.5 ordering the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be agreed or assessed in default of agreement, pursuant to s 195 of the National Law and s 57 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act);
[62]
12.6 prohibiting the publication of the names, addresses, or any other material tending to identify the patients referred to in the AIA or in any document before the Tribunal pursuant to s 60 of the SACAT Act; and
[63]
12.7 any further other orders that the Tribunal deems fit to make.
[64]
The respondent submits that the Tribunal ought to make orders that:
[65]
13.2 Dr Roger's registration be suspended for a period of 12 months;
[66]
13.3 Upon re-entry to practice, Dr Rogers be subjected to certain suggested conditions;
[67]
13.4 Dr Rogers pay the Board's costs of and incidental to the proceedings; and
[68]
13.5 The publication of the names, addresses, or any other material tending to identify patients referred to in the material before the Tribunal be prohibited.
[69]
The starting point when considering the appropriate sanctions for professional misconduct is always that the paramount purpose of disciplinary proceedings is the protection of the public and that there is no element of punishing the practitioner concerned.[5] In the well cited case of Craig v Medical Board of South Australia[6], former Chief Justice Doyle set out succinctly the other important purposes of sanctioning proceedings which were recently canvassed in Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts[7] and may be summarised accordingly:
[70]
The imposition of disciplinary sanction may serve one or all of the following purposes -
[71]
(a) preventing practitioners who are unfit to practise from doing so;
(b) securing the maintenance of professional standards;
(c) assuring members of the public and the relevant profession that appropriate standards are being maintained and that professional misconduct will not be tolerated;
(d) bringing home to a practitioner the seriousness of their conduct;
(e) deterring a practitioner from any future departures from appropriate standards;
(f) deterring other members of the profession who might be minded to act in a similar way; and
(g) imposing restrictions on a practitioner's right to practise so as to ensure that the public is protected.
[72]
It is important to note that sometimes the protection of the public requires disciplinary action which has a greater adverse effect on the practitioner than may be warranted if punishment was the relevant consideration[8] and that the personal circumstances of a practitioner may be of limited significance in the process of determining what sanctions are necessary in the public interest.[9]
Where there is a choice of sanctions, the Tribunal ought to choose a sanction which maximises the protection of the public.[10]
Where the facts of a matter are inextricably interwoven so as to make it difficult to establish a clear minimum standard of professional conduct, then it may be more appropriate to adopt a global approach to sanction rather than imposing separate sanctions for each finding as to conduct.[11] It may also be appropriate to impose a global sanction where a practitioner's conduct, if considered alone, would be subsumed in more serious conduct.[12]
The assessment of a practitioner's insight regarding their conduct and any remorse demonstrated, is a relevant factor when assessing sanction. In Medical Board of Australia v Jansz[13] the responsible Tribunal stated:
[73]
The degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into his or her conduct has been held to be of potential relevance to the determination in that it goes to the continuing risk posed by the practitioner. In this regard, the opportunity to see and assess the practitioner is important, as is the capacity for a tribunal which consists partly of practitioners of the relevant discipline. In context, this "insight" might be reflected in a variety of ways, such as an understanding of the nature of the conduct, an acceptance that the conduct was wrong, an appreciation of why the practitioner engaged in that conduct, empathy with the consequences, and/or a willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to do that which is necessary to avoid further transgressions.
>
> There is, however, authority for the proposition that where a practitioner has exhibited serious deficiencies of character, standard of conduct or attitudes, "clear proof" should be provided to demonstrate that they have reformed or obtained insight into their conduct.[14]
[74]
In relation to the need to maintain public confidence in health practitioners, this Tribunal has previously stated:
[75]
It is essential that the public can access health services with confidence, that practitioners will display integrity, propriety, and commitment to their health and welfare. Experience teaches that a few errant practitioners can cause enormous damage to patients and to the reputation of the profession. It is not sufficient that most members of the profession are held in high esteem. Registration effectively accredits the practitioner to the public as a person who can be trusted with the responsibilities of a registered person. The public needs to have confidence that appropriate action will be taken whenever there is good reason to doubt the fitness of a practitioner to be registered.[15]
[76]
In relation to a practitioner's dishonest and misleading conduct in the context of breaching a condition imposed on a medical practitioner's registration (or in this case an undertaking or expectation as previously discussed), the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Medical Board of Australia v Dr Conejera[16] stated:
[77]
... a breach of conditions imposed on a medical practitioner's registration is very serious misconduct (citation provided). The New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal observed in Health Care Complaints Commission v Varma[2022] NSWCATOD 4 that 'it is well established that conditions of registration for health practitioners must be "scrupulously observed" and it is "essential" to the smooth operation of the system of regulation and discipline that practitioners comply with conditions placed on their registration'.
[78]
In Medical Board of Australia v Lee[17] the responsible Tribunal when considering the conduct of a practitioner with a mental health diagnosis stated:
[79]
... simply pointing to the existence of a mental illness is insufficient; rather, a connection must be established between the relevant mental illness and the offending conduct or proposed sanction.
[80]
Finally, regarding a respondent's rehabilitation efforts and evidence of their good character and professional ethics, this Tribunal stated in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Moutakis[18] when deciding to place limited weight on character evidence:
[81]
Whilst not dismissing the respondent's attempts to rehabilitate himself...it is... a matter of the weight to be placed on that evidence in the Tribunal's exercise of its discretion, together with the question of what weight ought to be placed on character testimonials especially where an author strays into commentary on the factual basis of a complaint and/or any agreement reached between the parties and the respondent's previous good professional conduct, without full knowledge of the nature and duration of the misconduct...
[82]
We now turn to the evidence. The Tribunal received into evidence an Agreed Book of Documents (Exhibit A-4), containing (amongst other things) the following:
Report of Dr Michael Clarke, Psychiatrist, dated 18 October 2024
Report of Dr Cris Branson, Psychiatrist, dated 29 April 2025
Report of Dr Loraine Lim, Forensic Psychologist, dated 14 December 2023
Report of Dr Pam Carroll, Clinical Psychologist, dated 9 May 2025
Report of Dr Lorenzo Ponte, General Practitioner, dated 16 April 2025
11 character testimonials from professional colleagues and friends of the respondent of various dates[19]
The Tribunal heard oral evidence from Dr Rogers and Dr Branson at the Sanctions hearing.
Dr Rogers gave evidence that he acknowledges that he has a bipolar disorder and that his current medication regime consists of olanzapine and lithium. He said that he has been highly anxious about these proceedings (and giving evidence) but that he now realises that he has had an unhealthy obsession with LLLT which in retrospect he realises has jeopardised his medical vocation and has ruined his life and caused financial disaster. With the support of his current medical team and his wife (who he says provides unconditional love but is supportive only upon the condition that he remain treated and avoid anything to do with LLLT), he wants to continue to work as a General Practitioner to provide medical community support until the age of 70.
Dr Rogers candidly admits that he stopped taking his former medication sodium valproate (now replaced by olanzapine) in about 2014 because of the unpleasant side-effects, without telling his previous psychiatrist and again in 2018, whilst under the supervision of Dr Branson. He also admits that he reduced his lithium medication and ceased taking that medication altogether without informing Dr Branson in August 2020.[20]
The respondent says that because of his unhealthy obsession with LLLT which was "almost delusional"[21] he found it difficult not to talk about that treatment with the patients the subject of the Complaint, and that as a result, he did not make notes in their patient records of their conversations about that treatment because he knew that he should not have been having those conversations because of the assurances he gave the Board in 2017.[22]
Dr Rogers maintains that from 2014 to 2020, his wife was not only monitoring his medications but was raising concerns about his behaviour with Dr Branson when he was showing signs which indicated to her that he was becoming mentally unwell. He acknowledges that at that time, he was dismissive of his wife's concerns and that on occasions, he had argued with her in front of Dr Branson.[23]
Since the 2020 involuntary hospital admission and these further disciplinary proceedings, Dr Rogers says that he feels an incentive to be compliant with his current medications and he now genuinely appreciates the need to avoid any discussions with patients about LLLT.[24] He says that he experiences significantly less side-effects with olanzapine than sodium valproate and going forward, does not anticipate there will be any problems with medication compliance (especially as he has been compliant and fit to practice medicine without incident for the last five years). He considers that with the continuing support of his medical professionals and his wife, he will not relapse mentally or resume his obsession with LLLT and he gives that assurance to the Tribunal.[25] It should be noted, however, that he acknowledges that the treatment he is receiving from Dr Carroll is in its early stages.[26]
Dr Branson opined that the circumstances leading to the 2020 involuntary hospital admission and the subsequent change of the respondent's medications have had a significant impact on Dr Rogers and that with the support of his wife and the additional support of Dr Carroll, he has no concerns about the respondent's fitness and propriety to continue practising medicine.[27]
We will discuss the opinions expressed in the reports referred to above in the paragraphs following.
[83]
Mrs Shaw on behalf of the respondent made the following submissions:
Dr Rogers should be suspended (as opposed to disqualified) as he has been working since 2020, 40 hours a week, and is a fit and proper person to be practising medicine.
He now has insight into his conduct and is rehabilitated.
Dr Lim who assessed Dr Rogers in December 2023 and the Board's own doctor, Dr Clarke, who assessed the respondent in October 2024 and Dr Branson all state that since 2020, Dr Rogers has been compliant with the conditions in place on his registration.
Since the 2020 admission to the Lyell McEwin Hospital, the medication regime has been changed which has significantly reduced the side-effects Dr Rogers was suffering (which led to his non-compliance) and his mental health has accordingly, since then been stable.
In addition to his General Practitioner, Dr Branson, and now a psychologist, Dr Pam Carroll, Dr Rogers has the support of his wife who knows when he is becoming unwell and can initiate professional intervention.
Dr Clarke opines that the respondent's bipolar disorder and personality disorders are being successfully treated such that there is not a significant risk that he will engage in similar conduct in the future if permitted to continue to practise medicine.[28]
Dr Lim opines that the respondent has gained a great deal more insight into his psychological risk factors and that he now understands he had an unhealthy obsession with LLLT and that prior to 2020, he only had partial insight into his mental health and treatment needs. If his registration is cancelled, another acute detention for a relapse of the bipolar disorder could be triggered.[29]
Dr Branson opines that Dr Rogers' mood and treatment are currently stable and have been since the last major episode in 2020 - despite the stress of these disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, he is compliant with his medications.[30]
Dr Branson in evidence stated that he does not believe the respondent poses a risk to his patients when mentally unwell as he does not work during those episodic periods. He is also confident that since the 2020 episode, the respondent has far more insight into his condition and accordingly, will not stop taking his medication. He continues to review Dr Rogers every two months.[31]
The respondent both in his affidavit and evidence states that he now hates LLLT and regrets ever being introduced to it. His wife is committed to supporting him and olanzapine has been "a permanent game-changer".[32] He accepts that his conduct is serious but considers that he has now gained insight and is a fit and proper person to remain registered.[33]
The respondent no longer poses a risk to the public such that cancellation of his registration and disqualification is required as conditions can be imposed to provide sufficient protection including supervising audits, compliance by monitoring and accountability to AHPRA. Dr Clarke opines that his overall clinical condition is being successfully treated and he is not a significant risk to the public and is unlikely to engage in similar conduct in the future.[34]
Mr Schatz on behalf of the applicant responded with the following submissions:
[84]
Whilst the paramount consideration is public protection, disciplinary proceedings also ensure that public confidence in the health professions is maintained.
Criminal principles concerning diminished responsibility because of "mental impairment" should not be applied in disciplinary proceedings. Here, in any event, the respondent notwithstanding his bipolar diagnosis, was not impaired at the time of his conduct (over a number of years) - he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong, his judgement at the time of his misconduct was not impaired. The respondent's mental health diagnosis in the context of these proceedings is relevant to assessing the extent to which he has been successfully rehabilitated, whether he is fit and proper to practise, and the assessment of any future risk that Dr Rogers may engage in similar conduct in the future.[35]
When considering appropriate sanctions in these proceedings, the Tribunal ought to consider that the respondent has previously been counselled, cautioned, suspended, fined and placed under conditions but still pursued LLLT over a period of about 10 years and engaged in dishonest conduct. Other Tribunals have found that where a practitioner has not been deterred by previous disciplinary action, that is a very significant consideration when imposing sanctions.[36]
It is for the Tribunal to determine whether Dr Rogers has developed insight and it is a question of what weight ought to be placed on the evidence of Drs Clarke, Lim and Branson considering the respondent's evidence concerning his rehabilitation and the risk of further misconduct in the future - can Dr Rogers be trusted when he now says that following his 2020 relapse, he is reformed? The Tribunal should be careful in accepting the respondent's submission that since 2020 he has abandoned LLLT because that is what he stated in his letter to the Board in 2017 which he now admits was a false statement. It is also a relevant consideration that he has been treated and supervised by Dr Branson since 2014 and continues to be under Dr Branson's care.
The failure to honour commitments and undertakings is serious and tantamount to misleading conduct - the Board needs to trust medical practitioners to honour their undertakings and act in good faith and where there are breaches of undertakings or commitments, there is a need to deter other practitioners.[37]
In Medical Board of Australia v Heideman[38] this Tribunal stated:
[85]
Practitioners must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity when dealing with regulators and any failure to do so may not only amount to professional misconduct but also reflect directly and adversely on their fitness to practice
[86]
When assessing the character evidence submitted by the respondent, it is a question of what weight ought to be placed on that evidence especially as the respondent was engaging in professional misconduct during some of the periods that his referees vouch for him demonstrating remorse and insight.
[87]
We accept that since 2020, Dr Rogers has been compliant with his medications and has been practising as a General Practitioner without any apparent incident. He has however, been subject to these proceedings which no doubt has had a deterrent effect on him as he knows he is facing the prospect of disqualification.
We note that Drs Branson, Clarke and Lim have all expressed opinions that since 2020, the respondent has gained insight into his risk factors, that now that he has had an unhealthy obsession with LLLT, that he is not a significant risk to the public and is unlikely to engage in similar conduct in the future. However, we agree with Mr Schatz's submission that it is for this Tribunal to determine whether Dr Rogers has developed sufficient insight and it is a question of what weight we place on these opinions.
We did not find the respondent to be a compelling witness. He was clearly not psychotic during the period of his conduct and knew full well what he was doing despite having been sanctioned for identical conduct by the former South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal. His conduct before us demonstrates a wilful and blatant disregard of the previous orders imposed. To make matters worse, Dr Rogers has since then embarked on dishonest and misleading conduct by firstly, breaching an undertaking he gave to the Board not to persist with LLLT, and secondly, by not making and maintaining proper clinical records (as required) regarding the patients he reviewed and referred to that inappropriate treatment.
Whilst we accept that Dr Rogers admits his behaviour, it cannot be overlooked that he has, in a sense, been forced into compliance by these proceedings against the background of the previous disciplinary orders. On our assessment of him during his evidence, we do not consider that he has developed sufficient and sincere insight into his behaviour for the following reasons:
He has not acknowledged the impact that his behaviour has had on the patients affected;
He has not overtly expressed remorse; and
He is still not fully accepting of the fact that he is responsible for his own conduct (notwithstanding his mental health diagnosis).
Accordingly, we place little weight on the opinions expressed by the medical experts regarding the risk assessment of any future misconduct. It is plain that Dr Rogers relies heavily on the support of his wife and that support is conditional upon him staying away from LLLT in the future. History shows, however, that the respondent has not done so over a protracted period of time notwithstanding his wife's conditional support, the supervision of Dr Branson and his General Practitioner and the leniency shown by the former South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal in suspending as opposed to disqualifying him from medical practice and imposing conditions on his registration which should have but did not protect the patients affected here and the public in general. The breach of his undertaking and dishonest attempts to conceal that breach by not keeping clinical records and making referrals to a treatment clinic in a clear conflict of interest demonstrates to us that in the interests of justice, cancellation, disqualification and prohibition orders (as opposed to suspension with conditions) are the only appropriate sanctions consistent with the National Law principles under the circumstances.
We have considered the character testimonials and support letters provided by the respondent but place little weight upon them accepting Mr Schatz's submission that the respondent was engaging in professional misconduct during some of the periods during which his referees say that he was demonstrating remorse and insight in ignorance of all of the particulars of the misconduct which the respondent admits.
We do accept that Dr Rogers has maintained his current medication regime since 2020 without engaging in any further misconduct. We encourage him strongly to maintain that treatment and to continue to accept the support of his wife and the clinical medical professionals.
We impose the following sanctions having carefully considered all of the evidence before us and the parties' submissions. In doing so, we believe that the public will be properly protected, that their faith in the medical profession can be restored and that a very strong message will be sent to the medical profession in particular that dishonest conduct towards the health regulators and a disregard for orders of a disciplinary tribunal will not be tolerated and will be met with harsh sanctions. We also consider that a global approach here is appropriate, given the totality of the conduct.
[88]
Pursuant to s 196 of the National Law, finding that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct:
The respondent is reprimanded.
The registration of the respondent is cancelled commencing on 1 February 2026.
The respondent is disqualified from applying for re-registration as a health practitioner for a period of eighteen (18) months.
The respondent is prohibited from providing, whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer, and whether directly or indirectly, any health service until he is granted registration as a health practitioner under the National Law.
The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings to be agreed or assessed by the Tribunal in default of agreement.
The publication of the names, addresses, or any other material tending to identify the patients referred to in any of the documents or evidence before the Tribunal is prohibited pursuant to s 60 of the SACAT Act.
[89]
[1] Which for reporting purposes will be anonymised to protect the identity of third persons.
[90]
[2] Book of Documents ("BOD") p 32 (dot point 1); Transcript of 22 May 2025 at pp 4-7.