Health Care Complaints Commission v Caruana (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 36

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Caruana (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 36 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 22 March 2024 Decision date: 22 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: R C Titterton OAM, Senior Member Decision: (1) A hearing is dispensed with. (2) The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or as assessed. Catchwords: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – dentistry – costs – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 36, 50 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), ss 5, 139 Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Catt (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 28 Health Care Complaints Commission v Morsingh (No 2) [2023] NSWCATOD 183 Westerweller v The Owners Strata Plan No 18482 [2023] NSWCATAP 113 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Richard Caruana (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms A B Petrie (Applicant)

Solicitors: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Respondent (No Appearance) File Number(s): 2022/00299075

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. Reasons for decision in this matter were published on 29 January 2024 (Primary Decision). 2. I will not repeat those reasons, but suffice it to note that for the reasons published, the Tribunal found two complaints brought by the applicant against the respondent established. 3. The first complaint was that the respondent had an impairment within the meaning of s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (National Law) being a mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder (including substance abuse or dependence) that detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the respondent's capacity to practise the profession of dentistry. 4. The Tribunal found that the respondent suffers from a psychotic illness, most likely schizophrenia. 5. The second complaint was that that the respondent was not competent within the meaning of s 139(a) of the National Law in that he lacks the mental capacity to practise as a dentist. 6. Having found those complaints established, the Tribunal ordered that the practitioner's registration be cancelled, and that there be a non-review period of 3 years.