At Holman Webb Lawyers, we acknowledge the profound impact that direct experience in the health sector, including clinical backgrounds, can have in the field of health law. Our extensive involvement in this sector highlights the benefits of combining legal expertise with an in-depth understanding of healthcare. This synergy not only enriches our legal proficiency but also deepens our grasp of the healthcare environment.

In this article, we'll explore why experience in the health sector, whether through clinical roles or other relevant exposure, is not merely advantageous but highly beneficial in health law, focusing on its influence on legal advice, patient safety, and policymaking.

Holman Webb is pleased to announce that eleven lawyers have been included in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in Australia, and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Australia. Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. 

This article highlights the 11 February 2022 decision in Health Care Complaints Commission V Godwin [2022] NSWCATOD 17, in which a general practitioner, Dr Godwin was reprimanded and his registration suspended for 6 months by the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) in February 2022.

This article discusses the 31 March 2022 Supreme Court of Queensland decision in the matter of Re A [2022] QSC 159.  This decision has confirmed when court authorisation is required for the treatment of a minor who wants the treatment.  

On 19 May 2022, the NSW Parliament passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022 which will allow eligible persons access to voluntary assisted dying services from 28 November 2023.  This will effectively give those persons control over the timing of their death.

The Act has been designed to prioritise personal autonomy, and to provide those in the end stages of life with greater levels of support and medical attention (including palliative care) for the purpose of minimising suffering.

Under the Act, voluntary assisted dying is not considered suicide, or an attempt by a person to cause serious physical harm upon him or herself for the purpose of the Mental Health Act 2007.

This article discusses the 18 February 2022 decision in Dhupar v Lee [2022] NSWCA 15, which illustrates that damages are available for economic loss arising from an injury suffered by a mother as the result of giving birth.

This case note discusses the 14 April 2022 decision in Pridgeon v Medical Council of New South Wales [2022] NSWCA 60.

This particular matter arises from extraordinary circumstances that may never again be seen in quite the same way. Nevertheless, the case has broad application due to its interpretation of the scope of the “public interest” aspect of s.150 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), and its proper use.

The Practitioner in this matter, Dr Pridgeon, is a general practitioner who formerly worked in Grafton, located in northern New South Wales.  On 29 October 2018, the NSW Medical Council suspended his registration under section 150. 

The Practitioner sought reviews of the decision from the Council, but the suspension was affirmed. He then appealed to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal.

The Practitioner appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal.

Holman Webb is pleased to announce that eight lawyers have been included in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in Australia, and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Australia.

The practitioner in the matter of Hampshire v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 283 was first registered as a medical practitioner in 1976, and had been a consultant psychiatrist since 1988.

His registration was cancelled by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2020 because he had sent sexually inappropriate text messages to a young woman after a medico-legal assessment of her in April 2017. He had also failed to comply with health conditions on his registration that imposed limits on his intake of alcohol and sedatives, and he was considered not competent to practice due to alcohol dependence.

This matter is not the first to clearly illustrate the importance of complying with professional standards, and the risks of failing to do so.  Hampshire v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 283 is similar to the matter of Rahman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 247 (discussed in Holman Webb’s December 2021 article), in that the practitioners in question both had histories of non-compliance with conditions, which gave the respective Tribunal Members no confidence that either would adhere to further conditions imposed.

This case note from Insurance Partner Zara Officer discusses the recent matter of Rahman v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 247, an inappropriate prescribing case against Dr Abdul Bassel Rahman.

The offending conduct occurred over a period of 5 years, between 2011 and 2015. In May 2021 the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided to cancel the practitioner’s registration, and directed that he not seek a review for a period of 12 months. The practitioner appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency removed the practitioner’s name from the register soon after the Tribunal orders were made.

The case is noteworthy because it leaves no doubt that once cancellation of registration has occurred, the Tribunal cannot later order reinstatement, pending an appeal.