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.   

The Supreme Court of Victoria recently came to a decision in the matter of Appanna v Medical Board of Australia [2021] VSC 679.  The doctor concerned in this matter entered into an intimate relationship with a woman in New Zealand.

The Medical Council of New Zealand subsequently suspended the doctor’s practising certificate – although the suspension was later stayed by the District Court in New Zealand on the doctor’s undertaking to practice with conditions on his registration while his professional conduct was investigated.

In September 2019, the doctor advised the Australian authorities of what had transpired in New Zealand.  The Medical Board of Australia imposed an interim suspension on the doctor’s registration in Australia, on the same basis as the suspension was imposed in New Zealand.  AHPRA revoked the suspension, on becoming aware of the New Zealand District Court decision to terminate the suspension.  However, shortly thereafter the Medical Board of Australia reimposed the interim suspension in Australia, on a different basis.

The doctor appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, but the Tribunal confirmed the suspension.  The doctor appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Unusually, in the second half of 2021 there have already been two cases relating to notifications under ‘claims made and notified’ policies, which have looked at whether an Insured’s failure to notify facts and circumstances that have the potential to give rise to a claim can be cured by section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984.

In this article, Insurance Partner Zara Officer discusses how the recent matters of Avant Insurance Limited v Burnie [2021] NSWCA 272 and Darshn v Avant Insurance Limited [2021] FCA 706 have clarified that omissions to notify facts and circumstances that might give rise to a claim are not omissions to which section 54 can apply.

In light of the recent extended lockdown in Sydney, and the new short lockdown in Melbourne, the question again arises in relation to whether an employer can require its workers to be vaccinated against the COVID‑19 virus.

There are a myriad of discretionary issues for an employer to step through in determining whether it can direct its workers to be vaccinated; as well as what steps an employer can take if the worker refuses to follow such a direction.

Holman Webb Lawyers is proud to relay that the firm has been listed as a finalist in two categories in the Lawyers Weekly Australian Law Awards 2021:

• Law Firm of the Year
• Insurance Team of the Year

Click through for more information on this year's finalists, and upcoming winner announcements.

Holman Webb is pleased to announce that five lawyers have been included in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in Australia.

HealthEngine, an online booking engine and review platform for medical practises has been hit with a $2.9M fine for sharing the non-clinical personal information of 135,000 patients.

Working steadily with broad coercive powers, numerous and highly visible Royal Commissions in Australia have uncovered shocking examples of corrupted cultures in organisations that must be concentrating the minds of directors everywhere.

New Aged Care Quality Standard 8 states that an Approved Provider’s governing body is accountable for the delivery of safe and quality care and services.  In this podcast Alison Choy Flannigan (formerly Holman Webb), Brendan Moore (LASA), Catherine Maxwell (Governance Institute) and Rueben Sakey (IRT) discuss the responsibilities of the Board of an Approved Provider, what is required to prove compliance with the new governance standard and a case study on improving governance. This Podcast is particularly relevant in light of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.

Approved Providers will be assessed against the New Aged Care Quality Standards from 1 July 2019. In this podcast Alison Choy Flannigan (formerly Holman Webb), Brendan Moore (LASA), Catherine Maxwell (Governance Institute) and Rueben Sakey (IRT) discuss what is different. It includes a case study on new Standard 3 concerning Personal care and clinical care and some of the challenges in proving compliance. This Podcast from Holman Webb and LASA is particularly relevant in light of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.