Health Care Complaints Commission v Bova [2016] NSWCATOD 43

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Bova [2016] NSWCATOD 43 Hearing dates: 13 November 2015, 1, 2 & 3 December 2015, 9 & 10 February 2016 Date of orders: 13 April 2016 Decision date: 13 April 2016 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: O Shub, Principal Member J Zwart, Professional Member M Duguid, Professional Member P Hooker, General Member Decision: The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct Catchwords: Pharmacy, compounding, substitution, commercially available Legislation Cited: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] Gianoutsos v Glykis (2006) In re Dr. Suman Sood [2006] Health Care Complaints Commission of New South Wales v Jonathan Fryar [2013] Kirby P., in Pillai v Messiter [No. 2] (1989) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) (Applicant) Nicholas Patrick Bova (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: W Hunt (Applicant) R Lancaster SC and A Gerard (Respondent)

Solicitors: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant in Person) Schofield King Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 1520093

reasons for decision

Preliminary Matters 1. A disclosure was made by the Tribunal that Ms J. Zwart had, in the period from approximately 1998 to approximately 2005 sat with the proposed expert Mr Gerard McInerney as a board member of the Pharmacy Board. The disclosure was made in order to ensure that there was no conflict or perceived conflict in respect of Ms Zwart being a professional member on the Tribunal. 2. After taking instructions, both parties indicated that they had no objection to the expert and the professional member. 3. The principal member of the Tribunal indicated to the parties that in light of the diametrically opposed views expressed by the two experts, Mr Gerard McInerney and Mr Daryll Knowles, that it would be beneficial for the hearing for these expert witnesses to hold a conclave and seek to agree on as many of the issues as possible and the principal member then proposed that the expert witnesses would be called to give their evidence concurrently. The parties indicated that they were prepared to accept that proposal.