Having previously made findings against Dr John Barry Myers in terms of the Tribunal's order and reasons dated 31 July 2013, the Tribunal now determines that Dr John Barry Myers' registration is cancelled and he is disqualified from applying for registration before 22 October 2014, which is a period of one year from the date of this decision and reasons.

1. In our decision made 31 July 2013 we made a number of findings that Dr Myers had engaged in unprofessional conduct of a serious nature under the Medical Practice Act 1994 (MPA), professional misconduct under the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (Vic) (HPRA); and unprofessional conduct under the HPRA.
2. That decision is reported as Medical Board of Australia v Dr John Myers (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 1315.
3. At a further hearing on 2 September 2013, Counsel for the Board and for Dr Myers made submissions on further orders that the Tribunal should make given its findings, including the determinations that may be made under section 45A(3) of the MPA and section 77(4) of the HPRA.
4. At the 2 September hearing we were advised that there have been three other occasions on which findings of unprofessional conduct have been made against Dr Myers.
5. In this case, it was appropriate and agreed that the conduct be considered globally for the purposes of determination.
6. The Board has asked that Dr Myers' registration be cancelled and that he should be disqualified from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for two years.
7. Counsel for Dr Myers has submitted that cancellation is not appropriate and that what is necessary is a determination or determinations directed towards enhancing Dr Myers' capacity in the future to deal with complex, unwell patients. Counsel stated that Dr Myers has instructed that he will cooperate with any form of counselling or guidance imposed by the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal has the power to impose a determination of cancellation of registration and disqualification for applying for registration for a specified period of time under both section 45(a) of the MPA and section 77 of the HPRA. The Tribunal also has the power to impose a lesser determination including reprimand, fine, caution, counselling, suspension.

1. As noted by Counsel for Dr Myers, regardless of any submissions by parties to the Tribunal, the imposition of determinations sufficient to protect the public remains the sole prerogative of the Tribunal.[1]
2. The purpose of the imposition of determinations in disciplinary matters is protective not punitive. The objective of any determination is primarily the protection of the public and the maintenance of professional standards in the eyes of the public.[2]
3. As Doyle CJ expressed it in Craig v Medical Practitioners Board:[3]

A disciplinary tribunal protects the public by making orders which will prevent persons who are unfit to practise from practising, or by making orders which secure the maintenance of proper professional standards

1. Considerations of specific deterrence (deterring the specific practitioner from repeating the conduct) and general deterrence (deterring other practitioners from engaging in the conduct) are factors to be taken into account in assessing what protection of the public may require.
2. The task of the Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings is well described by Cosgrove J in Dickens v Law Society.[4]

"There is high authority for the proposition that the powers given to the disciplinary committee to discipline a practitioner are entirely protective in character. No element of punishment is involved... But to say that is merely to say that the powers are to be exercised for the purpose of, and in a manner seen likely to achieve, the maintenance of that high standard of conduct within the profession which will continue its good reputation, and protect, not only the future of the profession, but also protect its clients from harm.

With this object in mind, the committee is required to look to the future. Even if the practitioner's misconduct be relatively slight, he may yet be struck off, if his capacities and attitude have been revealed to be such that his continuance in practice constitutes a threat to the profession. On the other hand, conduct which is itself more grave in nature, may not warrant striking off, if it is seen as a temporary and explicable departure from the practitioner's own high standards... The order which the committee is called upon to make is that order which, in its opinion, is necessary, and no more than is necessary, to maintain professional discipline and high standards of conduct."

1. The risk of repetition of misconduct is an important factor for the Tribunal to consider.[5] As Counsel for Dr Myers noted, an assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner should be central to the imposition of a determination.
2. The degree to which the practitioner has acquired insight into his or her conduct is also an important factor to take into account: it is relevant to the continuing risk posed by the practitioner.[6]
3. As observed by the Tribunal in Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Grolaux [No. 2}[7]

"In context, this "insight" might be reflected in a variety of ways, such is an understanding of the nature of the conduct, an acceptance that the conduct was seriously wrong, an appreciation of why the practitioner engaged in that conduct, empathy with the consequences, and/or the willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and to avoid similar behaviour."

1. Every case will be different. The nature of the offending conduct, the particular circumstances of the practitioner, the context of the offending and its duration, and the risk of repetition are all factors which will rarely be identical in any two cases.[8]
2. For this reason, determinations in other cases may be of limited assistance other than illustrating the way in which the particular Court or Tribunal applied the general principles to the case before them.

1. Adverse findings have been made against Dr Myers on three previous occasions:
   • In November 2001, at an informal hearing, a panel of the former Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria made a finding of unprofessional conduct arising from Dr Myers having pleaded guilty to a charge of indecent assault (the 2001 panel decision);[9]
   • In 2004, the Tribunal found proven 10 out of 24 allegations of unprofessional conduct, and that the unprofessional conduct was of a serious nature (the 2004 Tribunal decision).[10] Dr Myers unsuccessfully appealed the VCAT decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria, and unsuccessfully appealed the Supreme Court decision to the Court of Appeal;[11]
   • In 2012, the Tribunal made findings of unprofessional conduct including unprofessional conduct of a serious nature against Dr Myers (the 2012 Tribunal decision).[12]

1. In November 2001, at an informal hearing, a panel of the former Medical Practice Board of Victoria made a finding of unprofessional conduct against Dr Myers.
2. The proceedings arose from charges of indecent assault, not in a medical context, to which Dr Myers pleaded guilty at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 20 June 2000.
3. The Magistrates Court made a finding of indecent assault but did not record a conviction.
4. Those proceedings led to the panel hearing at which the panel made a finding that Dr Myers had engaged in unprofessional conduct under the MPA.
5. In its reasons, the Panel expressed concern that Dr Myers still sought to explain away some of the significance of the conduct, despite admitting the conduct, that it was wrong and may have had a significant effect on the woman.
6. The panel reprimanded Dr Myers for the inappropriateness of his conduct, cautioned him about the seriousness with which the Board would view any future similar conduct and counselled him to develop further his understanding of boundary issues through appropriate reading and through discussion with an experienced colleague.

1. In 2004, the Tribunal found proven 10 out of 24 allegations of unprofessional conduct against Dr Myers.
2. In summary, the 2004 case arose out of conduct by Dr Myers in the period March 2000 to around June 2001 in relation to his treatment of an elderly husband and wife, Mr and Mrs A, and his conduct in relation to the couple's family. The facts are set out in detail in the Tribunal's reasons for decision.
3. The Tribunal proceedings were an application by Dr Myers for review of a decision in July 2003 of the Board.
4. In that decision, the Board made a finding that Dr Myers had engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined by paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition in section 3(1) of the MPA, and was satisfied that the conduct constituted unprofessional conduct of a serious nature. The Board reprimanded Dr Myers, cautioned him about the limits of his involvement in family situations, required him to undergo a course of counselling to be conducted by a psychologist and fined him an amount of $2000.
5. The Tribunal, in its decision on 14 July 2004, affirmed the Board's decision insofar as it related to the allegations that the Tribunal found proven, save that the Tribunal made one variation to the counselling requirement - that it be conducted by a psychiatrist.
6. The Tribunal found that Dr Myers' conduct was unprofessional conduct of a serious nature for a number of reasons:
   • His unprofessional conduct took place over a substantial period of time and there were many instances of it;
   • His conduct was deficient in a number of respects: he lacked objectivity in relation to the extent of his patient's cognitive impairment;
   • In taking a personal position in opposition to family members, he abandoned the appropriate objectivity which one would expect of a medical practioner; and
   • His interference with the decision-making process relating to Mrs A's discharge from the Epworth Hospital resulted in confusion about who had authority to determine when and to where Mrs A should be discharged.[13]
7. As noted above, Dr Myers unsuccessfully appealed the 2004 Tribunal decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria and to the Court of Appeal.
8. Because of the time taken to resolve the various appeals, Dr Myers did not commence the counselling, ordered by the Tribunal in 2004, until 2008.
9. Before us was an agreed summary of a letter from Dr Walton, who conducted the counselling with Dr Myers, to the Board. Dr Walton observed that:
   • Dr Myers was not suffering from any discernible mental illness but was a man of "distinct character" that has brought him into conflict with authorities;
   • Four sessions of counselling was unlikely to have altered Dr Myers' personality and Dr Walton did not recommend more than the four sessions he had provided.

1. In 2012 the Tribunal made findings of unprofessional conduct, including unprofessional conduct of a serious nature against Dr Myers.
2. The case arose out of conduct by Dr Myers between December 2006 and February 2007 in relation to an elderly woman, OP, who was subject to an involuntary treatment order. The Tribunal found that Dr Myers did not obtain informed consent from her as to the nature and/or extent of his fees for his professional services.
3. The Tribunal also found that Dr Myers' relationship with OP changed from a medico/legal professional relationship to one of a doctor/patient relationship in which Dr Myers actively engaged in the management of OP's health (for a short time); and that Dr Myers did not obtain informed consent from OP in relation to that redefinition of his relationship with OP.
4. In the 2012 decision, the Tribunal reprimanded Dr Myers, cautioned him and ordered him to undergo three sessions of counselling in relation to obtaining consent and matters of communication.

1. The Board asks that the Tribunal cancel Dr Myers' registration as a medical practitioner and disqualify him from applying for registration as a medical practitioner for two years.
2. Counsel for the Board submitted that cancellation was appropriate in this case for three reasons:
   • First, the unprofessional conduct and professional misconduct found by the Tribunal to have occurred in this case involved sustained, serious unprofessional conduct and professional misconduct by Dr Myers in relation to a vulnerable patient who suffered considerable distress as a result of Dr Myers' deficient conduct;
   • Secondly, this is the fourth time in approximately 12 years that findings of unprofessional conduct and/or professional misconduct have been made against Dr Myers;
   • Thirdly, cancellation is appropriate in this case because Dr Myers' insight into his unprofessional conduct and the management of professional boundaries is poor and hence the Tribunal could not be confident that he will not engage in further unprofessional conduct in the future should he be permitted to continue to practice. The Board submitted that Dr Myers' poor insight into his unprofessional conduct raises an issue of public safety.
3. The Board submitted that Dr Myers' lack of insight is all the more troubling in light of how experienced he is as a medical practitioner and the previous cases in which findings have been made that he engaged in unprofessional conduct and/or professional misconduct.
4. The Board also submitted that counselling would not be an appropriate determination in this case because it would not adequately reflect the level of seriousness of Dr Myers' unprofessional conduct and professional misconduct, and it has not been effective in the past.

1. Counsel for Dr Myers made the following submissions:
   • The informal hearing panel of the Medical Practitioner's Board in 2001, while dealing with an issue relating to boundaries, was focussing on a factual scenario that bears no similarity to that before the Tribunal
   • The situation before the Tribunal in 2004, and again in 2012, was, in both cases, quite different to that before the Tribunal on this occasion;
   • In its decision in 2004, the Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a $2000 fine and counselling by a medical practitioner in respect of the treatment of two elderly parents with whose family affairs Dr Myers was found to have become overly involved. Ultimately, Dr Myers received counselling from the psychiatrist, Dr Lester Walton;
   • In its 2012 decision, the Tribunal made findings against Dr Myers of unprofessional conduct in respect of treatment provided to an elderly patient who it found had not provided informed consent to his treatment. The Tribunal reprimanded, cautioned Dr Myers, and ordered him to undergo three sessions of counselling in relation to obtaining consent, and matters of communication. The situation was quite different to that before the Tribunal on this occasion;
   • .It is important to identify that previous cases heard before the Tribunal and others are of only limited utility in another case. It is inappropriate and erroneous to determine a matter on the basis of what may be a comparable decision;[14]
   • Decisions relating to sexual transgression of boundaries, referred to by the Board, are not apposite to the present matter because there has been no adverse finding in relation to a sexual matter in this case and such cases involve the very serious breach of trust involved in a sexual relationship between a health practitioner and a patient or former patient in this context;
   • It is relevant that the conduct in this matter commenced and concluded a significant time ago;
   • .Dr Myers has conceded that he has made errors of judgement in his provision of treatment to P, including that he should have moderated the number of visits and the timing of his visits to P's house, in asking P to perform personal favours for him, and in becoming enmeshed in her family fabric. Counsel submitted that it was in these circumstances that the Tribunal has found that a relationship beyond the proper scope of a doctor/patient relationship had developed;
   • .Dr Myers accepted that a number of the incidents found by the Tribunal to have constituted boundary-blurring occurred. He has accepted that with the benefit of hindsight and self-knowledge acquired since the events in question, he made errors;
   • Dr Myers relaxed the boundaries that ordinarily do and should extend between the practitioner and his patient in a genuine attempt to maintain a supportive relationship with his patient. This meant, however, that the relationship acquired incidents of friendship;
   • It was not suggested by the Board or the Tribunal that Dr Myers was other than bona fide in his clinical intentions. The Tribunal found that Dr Myers "considered that his treatment was appropriate and that he provided support and care for his patient while never letting the relationship go beyond a doctor/patient relationship." The Tribunal's concerns were that the relationship was inappropriate, that Dr Myers lacked insight into the risk of continuing that, that he did not have an adequate management plan and that he "mismanaged his own feelings and the messages he gave to his patient" and that he showed a "serious lack of insight".
   • Dr Myers was well-meaning but flawed in his exercise of judgement. He was not predatory and his motives were well-meaning.
   • Counsel emphasised that the Tribunal is not dealing with any form of allegation relating to either sexual or financial impropriety.
   • Further, the notification in this matter was on 6 January 2009 and the matter has weighed heavily on Dr Myers and has taken a significant emotional and financial toll. This should be seen as having exercised a major deterrent impact upon him.
   • The focus of the Tribunal must be on protecting other patients from errors comparable to those it has found Dr Myers to have made in this instance and in communicating clearly the need for other practitioners to avoid blurring of boundaries of the kind that it has found Dr Myers to have engaged in.
   • Counsel submitted that, in light of the fact that Dr Myers' level of moral culpability is not at the highest end, and that what has been identified is a series of errors in judgement, what is necessary is a determination or determinations directed towards enhancing Dr Myers' capacity in the future to deal with complex, unwell patients similar to P.
2. Counsel indicated that Dr Myers had instructed him that he would cooperate with any form of counselling or guidance imposed by the Tribunal and had identified a highly regarded and experienced psychiatrist as a person who might be suitable.

1. In considering the case before us, a number of matters have concerned us.
2. We were of the view that Dr Myers did not see clearly where the boundaries were in the doctor-patient relationship. He lacked insight into the risks of continuing the particular relationship and did not appear to us to have any significant appreciation of the risks to himself and more importantly to his patient. We were of the view that Dr Myers showed a serious lack of insight in considering that his treatment was appropriate and in believing that he never allowed the relationship to go beyond the doctor-patient relationship.
3. We were not satisfied that what occurred here was a mere error or errors in judgement, that Dr Myers accepted that the conduct was seriously wrong or had sufficient appreciation of why he had engaged in that conduct. He conceded that he had made some errors of judgement, but we were not satisfied that he understood or accepted the serious and continuing wrong that his conduct represented.
4. The allegations made and proven represented unprofessional conduct of a serious nature (in terms of the MPA) and professional, and unprofessional conduct (in terms of the HPRA). Whether or not Dr Myers was well-meaning or bona fide in his intentions, his actions caused distress and harm
5. We were concerned not only with the length of time over which the inappropriate conduct occurred but also by the range of inappropriate conduct.
6. This was not solely a case of a medical practitioner failing to terminate and appropriately transition a relationship with a patient who had become infatuated with him.
7. We found that Dr Myers transgressed professional boundaries in his contact with P and her family over a long period of time, and in a number of different ways; including, in 2006 involving himself in an application P made for an intervention order against her then husband, by attending court to support her husband in the application.
8. We also found as a separate instance of unprofessional conduct of a serious nature under the MPA that he regularly and frequently visited P at home including out of hours and/or late at night, in circumstances in which he had not been requested to attend and/or no acute physical or medical issue existed necessitating a house call.
9. This was not a case where a medical practitioner, in a short period of time, made one error of judgement that could be explained by the specific circumstances at the time or otherwise be regarded as a "one off".
10. In this case, we consider that Dr Myers' lack of insight into conduct taking place over a significant period of time, and what we assessed to be his continuing lack of insight, increases the risk of repetition of the conduct in the future and in other contexts.
11. We were troubled by Dr Myers' lack of insight in light of how experienced he is as a medical practitioner. He is neither young nor inexperienced.
12. Counsel for Dr Myers suggested that a reasonable interpretation of our findings was that the errors in judgement took place at the earliest phase of the professional relationship with P in 1997 and 1998, setting in train a period of interaction from which Dr Myers was not able to extricate himself in the succeeding years.
13. We are not of that view. First, as an experienced medical practitioner, Dr Myers ought to have been able to extricate himself from the relationship.
14. Secondly, Dr Myers' involvement in P's life had significantly reduced in the period 2002 to 2006. In 2006, his frequent out of hours home visits resumed. A number of the matters which we found to be professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct occurred in this second period.
15. Even without any previous findings against Dr Myers, the circumstances of the case before us and the concerns described above might well have warranted some form of suspension to protect the public; by providing a time for reflection by Dr Myers and specific deterrence against engaging in similar conduct in the future.
16. This is, however, the fourth time in approximately twelve years that findings of unprofessional conduct and/or professional misconduct have been made against Dr Myers.
17. We are mindful of the caution expressed by the Tribunal in Medical Board of Australia v Molnar & Scarff:[15]

As a matter of law, a previous finding against Dr Molnar should not be utilised by the Tribunal to increase the extent of any relevant determination to be imposed by it beyond what the Tribunal considers to be an appropriate determination in respect of the conduct which is brought in to the attention of the Tribunal.

Whilst any determination of the Tribunal must be appropriate in respect of the current matter before the Tribunal, Dr Molnar's previous conduct may be relevant to issues in respect of specific deterrence and therefore may play a role in identifying an appropriate determination to be made by the Tribunal.

1. We consider the previous findings to be relevant to the issue of specific deterrence, which is important in this case, and to a consideration of what determination may be appropriate to protect the public.
2. We note that Dr Myers has previously been reprimanded, cautioned and required to undergo counselling (in the 2001 panel decision and in the 2004 Tribunal decision).
3. The counselling ordered by the Tribunal in 2004 took place in 2008. At the conclusion of four sessions of counselling, Dr Walton observed that four sessions of counselling was unlikely to have altered Dr Myers' personality and, importantly in our view, Dr Walton did not recommend more than the four sessions he had provided.
4. The relevance of the above is twofold in our view.
5. First, the 2001 and 2004 orders did not apparently have a deterrent effect insofar as Dr Myers' conduct in respect of P continued for a period well beyond the 2001 decision and in the period after the 2004 decision. The 2001 and 2004 decisions indicate to us that an adverse decision is not of itself a sufficient deterrent because our findings in this case related in part to conduct in the period after 2004.
6. Secondly, we are satisfied that counselling has not been effective in the past.
7. We note that counselling was also ordered in the 2012 Tribunal decision, which related to Dr Myer's conduct in the period December 2006 to February 2007.
8. A close examination of the other adverse findings against Dr Myers also reduces our confidence that the public would be protected by something less than suspension or cancellation.
9. Each of those findings related to unprofessional conduct. Each represented a different scenario in which Dr Myers transgressed boundaries in some way.
10. As Counsel for Dr Myers submitted, the circumstances of the 2001 panel decision bear no relationship to the findings we have made in this case, but part of the panel's determination was to counsel Dr Myers to develop further his understanding of boundary issues through appropriate reading and through discussion with an experienced colleague.
11. The circumstances and context of the 2004 and 2012 Tribunal decisions are each different from each other and from this case, but there are some troubling similarities.
12. Both of those cases involved patients who were vulnerable; concerned boundary violations; and both, in our view, indicated an absence of the qualities of insight and self-awareness necessary to reduce the risk of repetition.
13. In the three Tribunal decisions including this case, there is a common thread of vulnerable patients, a lack of insight, and transgression of boundaries in a range of different circumstances.
14. Together with our assessment that Dr Myers continues to have poor insight into his unprofessional conduct, the above matters raise, in our view, an issue of public safety, notwithstanding that the last instance of unprofessional conduct occurred in the period ending in 2008.
15. In combination with the fact that previous adverse decisions have not apparently deterred Dr Myers, we have considered whether suspension or cancellation is appropriate in this case.
16. In Honey v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2007] VCAT 526 at paragraphs 41 to 61, the Tribunal discussed the difference between the determinations of suspension and cancellation and stated as follows:

The major difference between a suspension and cancellation is that once the doctor's registration is cancelled, he must reapply after the period specified. It is not guaranteed that he will be so re-registered. He must satisfy the Board that registration is appropriate and that he fulfils the qualifications for general registration...

Cancellation of registration sends a clear message of unsuitability to practice. Suspension may be thought to indicate confidence in the doctor's future ability to practice once the period of suspension is served. [our emphasis]

There are some cases in which it is abundantly clear that deregistration is the only option available to protect the public from a miscreant doctor.

This is apparent in situations in which the practitioner does not accept the inappropriateness of his conduct or has been shown to be a serial offender.

1. We have considered a period of suspension but do not, at this time, have confidence in Dr Myers' future ability to practise safely once any period of suspension is served.
2. We do not discount the possibility of change and potential future suitability to practise but we consider that there would need to be better evidence of such a change before Dr Myers resumed practice.
3. We are mindful also of the fact that this is a situation in which the practitioner has not accepted nor understood the full extent of the inappropriateness of his conduct, and has been shown to be a serial offender.
4. Cancellation, in our view, protects the public by ensuring that suitability to return to practice is established before re-registration and prevents Dr Myers from reoffending during the period of disqualification.
5. As the Tribunal has stated in McHutchinson v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria such an order is not a lifetime penalty.[16]
6. In McHutchinson, which concerned an anaesthetist, the Tribunal made the following comments:

It is apparent that the applicant is well regarded in his professional capacity and has the substantial support of his peers and of many members of the nursing staff of the hospital at which he works. We accept that the nature of his work is such that if he comes to a point of full insight into his offending conduct he will in future generally be working in an area where he will be subject to some scrutiny. In these circumstances we do not consider that the professional misconduct of the applicant is such that we conclude he should never be permitted to practise medicine again.

1. We observe that. in this case, we received a number of statements in support of Dr Myers, none of which were from medical practitioners. We were told that Dr Myers' recent practice has been primarily as a locum. His designation is as consultant physician and geriatrician.
2. Dr Myers' situation is different to the anaesthetist described above, however we do not conclude that Dr Myers should never be permitted to practise medicine again and we consider the Board's proposed period of disqualification to be too long.
3. We strongly recommend that Dr Myers undertake any form of counselling or guidance that might enhance his future suitability to treat vulnerable patients, to understand the boundaries in the doctor/patient relationship and to appreciate his professional responsibilities.
4. We do not however have confidence in his current ability to practise safely and consider that the protection of the public requires that Dr Myers registration be cancelled and that he be disqualified from applying for registration before one year from the date of this decision.

[1] CEG Psychology Board of Australia v Mair [2010] VSC 628; Chinese Medicine Registration Board v Wu (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2010] VCAT 753 at [46]

[2] Ha v Pharmacy Board of Victoria [2002] VSC 322 at paragraph [91] and [97] followed in Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Grolaux (No. 2) (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2009] VCAT 978; Health Care Complaints Commission v Lichfield [1997] NSWSC 297; (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 at 637.

[3] [2001} SASC 169 at [41].

[4] Unreported, Supreme Court of Tasmania. See also Chiropractic Board of Australia v Hooper [2013] VCAT 1346 at [22].

[5] Ha v Pharmacy Board of Victoria at paragraph 101.

[6] Williams v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2008] VCAT 1784 at paragraph 99;.

[7] [2009] VCAT 978 at [8].

[8] In Buzzo Holdings Pty Ltd and another v Loison [2007] VSC 31, Kaye J held at paragraphs 26 to 29 that it was inappropriate and erroneous to determine a matter on the basis of what may be a comparable decision; also Chiropractic Board of Australia v Hooper [2013] VCAT 1346 at 31. Principles of parity should not override the need to consider the unique facts and circumstances of the case at hand [Dental Practice Board of Victoria v Dr Hassed [2006] VSC 485 per Hargrave J..

[9] Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, Informal Hearing, Complaint No 207/2001.

[10] Myers v Medical Practitioners Board [2004] VCAT 1358

[11] See Myers v Medical Practitioner's Board [2004] VSC 532; and Myers v Medical Practitioner's Board of Victoria [2007] VSCA 163; (2007) 18 VR 48.

[12] Medical Board of Australia v Dr John Barry Myers [2012] VCAT 1470

[13] [2004] VCAT 1358 at [211 - 212]

[14] See cases referred to at fn 8 above.

[15] Unreported VCAT, 2 November 2012, at [326] per Judge Hicks DP and Members Shanahan and Reddy

[16] McHutchinson v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2000] VCAT 2319 at [46] per Kellam J and Member Davis.