1. The respondent be reprimanded.
2. The respondent's registration be cancelled.
3. The respondent be disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for 24 months.
4. The respondent be prohibited from providing any health service until he is re-registered.
5. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the referral calculated at 90 per cent of the scale of costs applicable at the time that the relevant work was undertaken for the purposes of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932.

Professions and Trades - Medical Practitioners - Disciplinary Proceedings - Professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law - Failure to maintain appropriate boundaries, provision of inadequate or inappropriate treatment, and failure to maintain records - Blemished record of conduct - Cancellation of registration required to protect the public.

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Tasmania) Act 2010;

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, s 196;

Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932.

Medical Board of Australia v Dr Kim Yong [2024] TASCAT 123;

Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S);

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Little (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 687;

Pharmacy Board of Australia v Clark [2025] TASCAT 68.

Applicant: N Richards - Australian Government Solicitor

An order restricting publication or disclosure of any information which might enable the identification of any patient, notifier, or lay person named or referred to, subject to exceptions, was made pursuant to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020, s 81(3) on 20 February 2025.

1. The respondent is a medical practitioner, registered as a general practitioner (GP), and previously worked at a practice in Hobart. The applicant (the Board) is responsible for the professional conduct of medical practitioners and has referred this matter to the Tribunal. The Board contends that the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. Broadly speaking, it contends that the respondent:
   • failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a patient;
   • provided inadequate or inappropriate treatment to several patients, including by inappropriately prescribing drugs of dependence; and
   • failed to maintain clinical records and documentation.
2. The respondent accepts that he engaged in the conduct alleged by the Board, that it constitutes professional misconduct, and that the sanctions sought by the Board should be imposed. Those sanctions are a reprimand, cancellation of registration, disqualification from (re-)applying for registration for two years, and a prohibition on providing any health service until re-registration.
3. The only material relied upon by the parties is a statement of agreed facts. Those facts satisfy me that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct and that the agreed sanctions should be imposed.

The Tribunal's approach to the parties' agreement

1. In Pharmacy Board of Australia v Clark [2025] TASCAT 68 at [24]- [26], I explained the approach to disciplinary proceedings where the parties are agreed:

Notwithstanding the parties' agreement, the applicant bears the onus of proving its case on the balance of probabilities. I must be "comfortably satisfied" of the facts in issue, consistent with the seriousness of the allegations: Dental Board of Australia v Trijo [2020] VCAT 557 at [35]. > > While I must make my own findings as to the respondent's conduct and its seriousness and form my own view as to the sanctions to be imposed in respect of it, the parties' agreement is highly relevant: Medical Board v McGrath [2014] VCAT 641 at [19]- [20]. I should not depart from their agreement without a clear or exceptional reason: Medical Board of Australia v Fox [2016] VCAT 408 at [6]. > > Medical Board of Australia v Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S) helpfully sets out at [30] a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to determining the appropriate sanction. It is unnecessary to recite the list here. I will consider the relevant matters as part of my consideration below. As a starting point, it is well-established that public safety by the maintenance of proper professional standards is the primary consideration. The impact on the respondent is a secondary or subordinate factor.

2. With respect to sanctions, I am guided by what the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal said in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Little (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 687 at [44]- [45]:

We agree with the parties' submission that where the Tribunal is persuaded that a penalty proposed by the parties is appropriate, it is highly desirable practice to accept the proposal and there is an important public policy benefit in doing so. > > As Commonwealth of Australia v Director, Fair Work Building Inspectorate [(2015) 258 CLR 482; [2015] HCA 46] makes clear at [48] and [49], however, the Tribunal retains the responsibility of deciding the appropriate sanction: > > NW Frozen Foods and Mobil Oil do not suggest that the task of a judge faced with an agreed civil penalty submission is to determine whether the submitted penalty is "wholly outside" the "range of penalties reasonably available" or that the court is "bound to impose [an agreed] penalty irrespective of whether it is considered appropriate". To the contrary, as was emphasised in Mobil Oil, those cases make plain that the court is not bound by the figure suggested by the parties. The court asks "whether their proposal can be accepted as fixing an appropriate amount" and for that purpose the court must satisfy itself that the submitted penalty is appropriate. > > Nor is it "pious" to suppose that judges will do their duty, as they have sworn to do, and therefore reject any agreed penalty submission if not satisfied that what is proposed is appropriate. It would be a travesty of justice if that were not the case.

1. The respondent was born in Malaysia in 1956. He obtained a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery from the University of Adelaide in 1983, but it was not until 2010 that he first registered and practised as a medical practitioner in Australia. The respondent was working as a GP at a practice in Hobart at the relevant time, stopping when the Board suspended his registration in December 2023.

The Board and the professional conduct obligations

1. The Board has functions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law), which was adopted as a law of Tasmania by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Tasmania) Act 2010. The National Law required the respondent to act in accordance with the Board's 'Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia', which was in effect from:
   • 1 July 2010 to 16 March 2014 (2010 Code);
   • March 2014 to 30 September 2020 (2014 Code); and
   • 1 October 2020 (2020 Code).
2. Consistent with the parties' approach, I will call these the 'professional standards'. The parties agree that the respondent breached the following professional standards, which I have taken verbatim from the agreed facts:

Professional values and qualities of doctors which includes: > > 2.1 Doctors have a duty to make the care of patients their first concern and to practise medicine safely and effectively. They must be ethical and trustworthy. > > Patients trust their doctors because they believe that, in addition to being competent, their doctor will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion. Doctors have a responsibility to protect and promote the health of individuals and the community; > > Providing good patient care which includes: > > 3.1.1 Assessing the patient, taking into account the history, the patient's views, and an appropriate physical examination. The history includes relevant psychological, social and cultural aspects; > > 3.1.2. Formulating and implementing a suitable management plan (including arranging investigations and providing information, a diagnosis, treatment and advice; > > 3.2.3 Maintaining adequate records; > > 3.2.4 Considering the balance of benefit and harm in all clinical-management decisions; > > 3.2.6 Providing treatment options based on the best available information; > > 3.2.7 Only recommending treatments when there is an identified therapeutic need and/or a clinically recognised treatment, and a reasonable expectation of clinical efficacy and benefit for the patient. > > Doctor-patient partnership which requires high standards of professional conduct. It involves: > > 4.2.6 Recognising that there is a power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship, and not exploiting patients in any way, including physically, emotionally, sexually or financially. > > Patients who are dissatisfied have a right to complain about their care. When a complaint is made, good medical practice involves: > > 4.12.1 Acknowledging the patient's right to complain. > > 4.12.3 Working with the patient to resolve the issue, locally where possible. > > 4.12.4 Providing a prompt, open and constructive response, including an explanation and, if appropriate, an apology. > > 4.12.5 Ensuring the complaint does not adversely affect the patient's care. In some cases, it may be advisable to refer the patient to another doctor. > > 4.12.7 Reflecting on the complaint and learning from it. > > Professional behaviour includes observing and practising the principles of ethical conduct. Professional boundaries are the limits that define the relationship between a doctor and their patient and involve: > > 10.2.1 Maintaining professional boundaries. > > 10.2.2 Never using your professional position to establish or pursue a sexual, exploitative or other inappropriate relationship with anybody under your care. This includes those close to the patient, such as their carer, guardian, spouse or the parent of a child patient. The Board has developed Guidelines: Sexual boundaries in the doctor-patient relationship, which apply to all doctors. > > Professional behaviour includes maintaining clear and accurate medical records and is essential for the continuing good care of patients and involves: > > 10.5.1 Keeping accurate, up to date and legible records that report relevant details of clinical history, clinical findings, investigations, diagnosis, information given to patients, medication, referral and other management in a form that can be understood by other health practitioners. > > 10.5.4 Ensuring that medical records are sufficient to facilitate continuity of patient care.

3. The National Law, s 3 non-exhaustively defines 'professional misconduct' as:

(a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and > > (b) more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and > > (c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

4. Thus, the professional standards are relevant in determining whether the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

1. The respondent's conduct relates to eight of his patients between 2013 and 2022 and falls within the four grounds relied upon by the parties. The respondent accepts that he engaged in the conduct alleged in the grounds and that his conduct breached the professional standards as outlined earlier.
2. He accepts that his conduct:

[B]rings the medical profession into disrepute and/or is detrimental to the reputation of the medical profession and the confidence of the public in the profession... [and] was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.

3. The respondent also accepts that his conduct constitutes professional misconduct as defined earlier.

Ground 1 - failure to maintain professional boundaries

1. Between December 2021 and December 2022, the respondent contracted with a patient to perform building/renovation work on one of his residential properties and offered to or did lend that patient money to buy a vehicle to assist with that work. The parties agree, and I accept, that the respondent paid a "fair rate" for the work, some of which was paid in advance.

Ground 2 - clinical care provided - inadequate or inappropriate treatment

1. Between May 2013 and December 2022, the respondent inappropriately prescribed that same patient benzodiazepine and codeine-based medications. This was inappropriate because the patient had a history of alcohol and drug dependency and the respondent did not adequately review the patient. It was also inappropriate because of their commercial relationship the subject of ground 1.
2. When the patient complained about the treatment in or around December 2023, the respondent failed to respond adequately or at all to that complaint.

Ground 3 - clinical care provided - inadequate or inappropriate treatment

1. The respondent's treatment and management of other, unrelated patients and his prescribing of medication to them was inadequate. While I do not have much detail regarding the conduct, it may be described as follows.
2. For nearly four and a half years from June 2019, the respondent inappropriately prescribed benzodiazepine and other drugs of dependence to a patient whose history included severe alcohol dependence, polysubstance misuse, polypharmacy overdoses, and reported uses of intravenous methamphetamine and opioids.
3. The respondent's prescribing of drugs of dependence to five other patients was similarly inappropriate because each had a history of chronic pain and anxiety.

Ground 4 - failure to maintain adequate or accurate records

1. The respondent provided various consultations with respect to eight patients but maintained "no meaningful notes recording the consultations or reasons for prescribing the medication or plans to taper off the medications". I have little detail regarding this conduct but accept the parties' agreement that it occurred, that it breached the professional standards and, as I will outline, the characterisation of it.

1. The parties agree that the respondent's breaches constitute professional misconduct. It is convenient to set out this part of the statement of agreed facts:

39. The Respondent's conduct in Grounds 1 and 2 constitutes professional misconduct because it was: > > 39.1. a failure to observe and/or maintain professional boundaries with [the patient] who was vulnerable on account of [his] mental health and other health conditions; > > 39.2. a breach by the Respondent of the relationship of trust between the Respondent and [the patient]; > > 39.3. inconsistent with the professional standards, including clauses 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.3, 8.4.1, 8.4.4 of the 2010 Code, clauses 1.4, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 of the 2014 Code and clauses 4.12.3, 4.12.4, 4.12.5, 4.12.7, 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 of the 2020 Code; > > 39.4. substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a medical practitioner of the Respondent's level of training or experience; and/or > > 39.5. more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and > > 39.6. conduct which is inconsistent with the Respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a medical practitioner. > > 40. The Respondent's conduct in Grounds 3 and 4 constitutes professional misconduct because it was: > > 40.1. a failure to maintain adequate records and a failure to undertake and/or record regular assessments of presenting issues or clear management plans; > > 40.2. inconsistent with the professional standards, including clauses, clauses 1.4, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 8.4.1 and 8.4.4 of the 2014 Code and 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6 ,3.2.7 10.5.1 and 10.5.4 of the 2020 Code, > > 40.3. substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a medical practitioner of the Respondent's level of training or experience; and/or > > 40.4. more than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, when considered together, amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and > > 40.5. conduct which is inconsistent with the Respondent being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a medical practitioner.

2. I accept that characterisation. It follows that I am satisfied that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct.

1. Section 196 of the National Law allows one or more sanctions to be imposed in respect of a finding of professional misconduct. The parties agree that the respondent should be reprimanded, disqualified from applying for registration for two years, prohibited from providing any health service until he is re-registered, and his registration cancelled.
2. The respondent has a blemished history of compliance with professional standards. He has been cautioned three times: once for administering a vaccine which was contraindicated as the patient was prescribed oral steroids (2012), once for making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to a patient (2012), and once for inadequate assessment of and failing to refer a patient to emergency services (2017).
3. The Board received several other past notifications in relation to the respondent's compliance with professional standards, albeit with no further action being taken.
4. In early 2022, the Board received a notification which identified concerns about the respondent inappropriately prescribing benzodiazepines and codeine-based medication to a vulnerable patient with a long history of polysubstance use. In late 2022, the Board imposed conditions on the respondent's registration requiring him to undertake further education.
5. In mid-2024, the Tribunal found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct: Medical Board of Australia v Dr Kim Yong [2024] TASCAT 123. The respondent had violated professional boundaries, including by hugging and kissing his patient. He was reprimanded and his registration suspended for six months. The professional misconduct was committed some ten years earlier but only came to the Board's attention in 2019 and was not referred to the Tribunal until 2023.
6. The appropriate sanctions are to be considered at the time of determination, not by reference to the date of the unprofessional acts: Medical Board of Australia and Singh [2017] WASAT 33 (S) (Singh) at [24]. (Unlike, for example, prior convictions in the criminal law.) Thus, all the respondent's prior conduct is relevant to sanctions.
7. The respondent's poor history of complying with professional standards heightens the need for sanctions which protect the public against further misconduct and denounce transgressions. See the discussion in Singh at [30]. The incidents were neither isolated nor aberrations. They reflect an experienced medical practitioner's continued unwillingness or incapacity to comply with professional standards.
8. While sanctions are to be imposed in respect of the conduct the subject of the four grounds and not in respect of the respondent's past conduct, I am left with no doubt that nothing short of cancellation of the respondent's registration is appropriate. The summary in Singh at [31]-[34] of the approach to cancellation is apposite:

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to cancel a practitioner's registration is exercised not for the purpose of punishing the practitioner concerned, but for the protection of the public and the reputation and standards of the medical profession: Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Thorpe [ 2008] WASC 9 at [43]. > > Where an order for cancellation of a practitioner's registration is contemplated, the ultimate question is whether the material demonstrates that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to remain a medical practitioner: A Solicitor [2004] NSW at [15]. > > A practitioner is not a fit and proper person to be a registered practitioner and should be removed from the register where the unprofessional conduct is so serious that the practitioner is permanently or indefinitely unfit to practise (Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 159 at [27]; Barristers' Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; (2000) 112 A Crim R 438 at [38]; Love at [17]-[18]; A Legal Practitioner (S) at [21]-[25]; Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Brickhill [2013] WASC 369 at [19]- [20] (Thomas JA, McMurdo P and White J agreeing); New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284; (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 at [26]- [28]); Love at [17]­[18]). > > The practical effect of a cancellation is that the onus is on the practitioner to establish that he is a fit and proper person should he seek to resume practice.

9. I repeat that the only material relied upon by the parties is the statement of agreed facts. It is evident that the respondent has cooperated with the Board in resolving this proceeding. It might therefore be said (but no party has expressly put) that he has some insight into and remorse for his conduct. I am unable to make such a finding in the absence of evidence. In any event, a practitioner's personal circumstances are of little weight when balanced against "the protection of the public by the maintenance of proper standards within the profession": Singh at [28].
10. A reprimand is necessary to formally denounce the respondent's conduct. Prohibition of providing any health service until re-registered is important to give effect to the cancellation.
11. The parties also seek an order disqualifying the respondent from applying for registration as a health practitioner for two years. The respondent should be disqualified for the minimum period that I consider necessary to give effect to the principles relevant to sanction. Given the respondent's poor history and the broad and varied nature of his breaches, being breaches of several professional standards with respect to several patients over an extended period, I am satisfied that two years is an appropriate period.

1. I have explained why I am satisfied that the Tribunal should impose the agreed sanctions.
2. The parties also seek an order that the respondent pay the Board's costs as agreed or as taxed. The order sought by the parties is silent as to the scale of costs. It is common for costs in proceedings in Tasmania under the National Law to be awarded at a scale of 90% of the applicable Supreme Court scale. I see no reason to depart from that approach.
3. I order:

(a) The respondent be reprimanded.

(b) The respondent's registration be cancelled.

(c) The respondent be disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for two years.

(d) The respondent be prohibited from providing any health service until he is re-registered.

(e) The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the referral calculated at 90 per cent of the scale of costs applicable at the time that the relevant work was undertaken for the purposes of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932.