Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Bosnich [2012] NSWMT 16

Medical Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Bosnich [2012] NSWMT 16 Hearing dates: 25/6/2012-27/6/2012 Decision date: 03 July 2012 Before: Elkaim SC DCJ Ms H Kiel Dr H Pedersen Dr G Yeo Decision: See paragraph 70 Catchwords: Unsatisfactory conduct and misconduct, failures in prescription of drugs to the public and family members, unsatisfactory record keeping. Legislation Cited: Medical Practice Act 1992 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 HCCC v Dr Kalokerinos, unreported, Medical Tribunal, 9 May 2007 Lee v Health Care Complaints Commission [2012] NSWCA 80 NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Complainant) Dr Anthony Bosnich (Respondent) Representation: K Richardson (Complainant) G Farmer SC (Respondent) Health Care Complaints Commission (Complainant) HWL Ebsworth (Respondent) File Number(s): 40021/11 Publication restriction: Yes

Judgment 1The Tribunal has heard two complaints brought by the Health Care Complaints Commission ("HCCC") against Dr Anthony Constantine Bosnich. The complaints can be found behind Tab 1 in Exhibit 1. 2The following particulars of Complaint 1 were not pressed: 2(b), 3(c), 4(b) and 5. Particulars 1, 2(a), 3(a) and (b), 4(a), 6, 7 (except in respect of three patients), 8, 9 (except in relation to follow up evaluation), 11, 12 and 13 were admitted in their entirety. Particular 14 was denied. 3The particulars of the complaints cover, in broad terms, the following areas of allegation: the inappropriate prescription of Human Growth Hormone ("HGH"), the inappropriate prescription of Pregnyl, Chlomid and Tamoxifen, the inappropriate prescription of Tertroxin and Benzodiazepines, self-treatment and the treatment of relatives, the treatment of patients without consultation and the failure to keep proper records, both generally and in relation to restricted substances. 4With some exceptions the general period under complaint was from March 2005 to November 2007. 5At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal was informed that in the course of the last seven days Dr Bosnich had admitted that he had been guilty of professional misconduct as set out in Complaint 2. 6The extent of the admissions, together with the particulars that were not pressed, left few factual matters in dispute. 7In approaching those remaining factual matters the Tribunal was mindful that although the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities that it should nevertheless apply the principles enunciated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 in resolving the remaining allegations against Dr Bosnich. 8Dr Bosnich indicated that he did not wish there to be a separate hearing on consequential orders. The Tribunal proceeded in accordance with that request.