Health Care Complaints Commission v Follent (No2) [2015] NSWCATOD 106

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Follent (No2) [2015] NSWCATOD 106 Hearing dates: 13 August 2015 Date of orders: 30 September 2015 Decision date: 30 September 2015 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: F Marks ADCJ (Presiding member) Dr Saw-Hooi Toh (Professional member) Dr Emery Kertesz (Professional member) M Gleeson OAM (Lay member) Decision: Respondent is reprimanded, practice conditions imposed and ordered to pay costs Catchwords: Medical practitioner guilty of professional misconduct-held appropriate protective orders are reprimand and strict regime of practice conditions-costs awarded. Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Health Care Complaints Commission v Follent [2015] NSWCATOD 31 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Complainant) Dr JW Follent (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: H Bennett (Complainant) P Griffin (Respondent)

Solicitors: Health Care Complaints Commission (Complainant) Avant Mutual Group Ltd (Respondent) File Number(s): 1420211 Publication restriction: Non-publication order made

Reasons for decision

Introduction 1. In a decision published 31 March 2015 (Health Care Complaints Commission v Follent [2015] NSWCATOD 31), we found the respondent medical practitioner guilty of professional misconduct. The respondent had admitted that he was guilty of the complaints and particulars brought against him, and that they constituted professional misconduct. The proceedings were stood over to enable an audit to be conducted of the respondent's practice and for other evidence to be made available to assist the Tribunal in determining what protective orders and other consequential orders were appropriate to be made in the proceedings. For completeness we note that in the course of our decision we imposed a number of restrictions on the respondent's practice of medicine including prohibiting his entitlement to prescribe drugs of addiction, requiring him to practice in a named group practice, limiting the number of patients with whom he could consult in any one day, to practice under supervision, and to undergo an audit of his practice records. 2. The nature of the complaints are set out fully in our earlier reasons for decision. In essence, there were a number of occasions between June 2007 and September 2011 when the respondent had inappropriately prescribed drugs of addiction to a number of patients. In addition on some occasions he had failed to conduct an appropriate physical examination, he had prescribed inappropriate doses of drugs, he had failed to record a number of critical matters, and had failed to detect a compression fracture whilst reading an x-ray report. In all, five patients were involved. 3. We should stress that although we have made a somewhat cryptic reference to the nature and extent of the complaints brought against the respondent, when one considers the detail of the complaints fully set out in our earlier decision, it is plain that they are serious matters which, without more, could justify protective orders resulting in a cancellation of the respondent's registration.