HCCC v Gayed [2009] NSWMT 4

New South Wales Medical Tribunal

CITATION : HCCC v Gayed [2009] NSWMT 4 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal PARTIES : Health Care Complaints Commission Mr William Gayed FILE NUMBER(S) : 40007 of 2009 CORAM: Murrell, SC DCJ - Kok, Dr E - Wroth, Dr M - Smith, Mr RJ CATCHWORDS: Breach of registration conditions - Professional misconduct - Appropriate orders. LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630; CASES CITED: Law Society of NSW v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408; NSW Medical Board v Dinakar (24 June 2009). DATES OF HEARING: 23 November 2009 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23 November 2009 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr I Bourke of Counsel for the Complainant Mr E Pike of Counsel for the Respondent ORDERS:

JUDGMENT: The Context

1 Ten years after he was removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners for professional misconduct in relation to the prescription of drugs, the respondent comes before the Medical Tribunal on a similar complaint.

2 The practitioner is 74 years old. He was first registered in 1976. In February 1997, the Tribunal found the practitioner guilty of professional misconduct in that he inappropriately prescribed benzodiazepines and narcotic analgesics during the period 1989 to 1992. In its reasons for decision, the Tribunal stated (Exhibit A.3, tab 1, p 55): "The Tribunal is unable to accept the respondent as a truthful and reliable witness in respect of many issues which arose in the course of the hearing."

The respondent was removed from the Register.

3 In 2000, the respondent sought restoration to the Register. The Tribunal had "some misgivings" about whether the respondent had changed, but, in December 2000, the Tribunal decided to restore the respondent to the register. He was re-registered subject to conditions, including supervision and mentoring. The respondent was not to "prescribe, handle, possess or administer any Schedule 4D or Schedule 8 drugs" and was to provide a copy of the registration conditions to all practitioners with whom he was associated in any medical practice. In April 2003, the Tribunal modified the supervision requirement, deleted the mentoring condition, and amended the notification condition to require that the respondent provide a copy of the conditions to his principal or practice manager and any practitioner with whom he was in partnership. In July 2004, the Conduct Committee removed any requirement for supervision. The Schedule 4D/8 drug condition (condition 6) and the notification condition (condition 7) remained.