Health Care Complaints Commission v Naiyer (No 2) [2014] NSWCATOD 58

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Naiyer (No 2) [2014] NSWCATOD 58 Hearing dates: 28 May, 2014 Decision date: 06 June 2014 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: F Marks Acting Judge(Principal Member) Dr V Sutton (Medical Member) Dr V de Carvalho (Medical Member) Dr J Mair (Lay Member) Decision: Complaint 3 has been made out. The respondent is found guilt of professional misconduct Registration cancelled. Costs reserved. Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Complaint) Dr Mohammed Adnan Naiyer (Respondent) Representation: Counsel S McNaughton SC (Complaint) M Lynch (Respondent) Health Care Complaints Commission (Complaint) Norton Rose Fulbright (Respondent) File Number(s): 1420075 Publication restriction: Order made prohibiting details identifying or tending to identify patients

reasons for decision

INTRODUCTION 1In Health Care Complaints Commission V Naiyer (No 1) [2014] NSWCATOD 54, 13 May 2014, this Tribunal as currently constituted found that Complaints 1, and 2 (the details of which are set out in that Decision) had been made out, and reserved for further consideration after submissions whether Complaint 3 had been made out and what orders should be made by the Tribunal in all the circumstances. These Reasons for Decision deal with these matters. They should be read in conjunction with the earlier decision. 2In essence, Complaint 1 concerned the conduct of an internal physical examination on a young, single female patient in circumstances where it was not necessary to undertake it, and it was not sufficient for the purpose for which it was said to have been undertaken, and the details of which the respondent had failed to record. In essence, Complaint 2 covered circumstances applying to 2 patients. With respect to Patient B, a young single female, the respondent had inappropriately suggested to her that she meet him for coffee, and had thus failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries and had sought to initiate an inappropriate personal relationship. With respect to Patient A, the respondent had inappropriately "nuzzled" the breast of a young single female patient whilst conducting an examination using a dermascope. We found that the respondent had engaged in inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature towards this patient.