Medical Board of Australia v Wong
[2016] QCAT 112
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Medical Board of Australia v Wong[2016] QCAT 112
- Add to List
Medical Board of Australia v Wong[2016] QCAT 112
Medical Board of Australia v Wong[2016] QCAT 112
CITATION: | Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2016] QCAT 112 |
PARTIES:
| Medical Board of Australia (Applicant) v Kevin Robert Wong (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR142-14 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | 1 April 2016 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF:
| Judge Suzanne Sheridan, Deputy President Assisted by: Ms A Bains Dr K Goh Dr B Kable |
DELIVERED ON: | 21 June 2016 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE:
|
|
CATCHWORDS:
| PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – OTHER MATTERS – where the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal found registrant to be impaired – where conditions imposed upon registrant’s registration – determination of appropriate conditions STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – GENERALLY – whether the words of s 102(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) are sufficiently broad to enable the making of an award of costs on an indemnity basis PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEDURE IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS AND TRIBUNALS – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – PARTICULAR CASES – UNREASONABLE CONDUCT OR DELINQUENCY RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS – where applicant failed to adopt reasonable course proposed by respondent – whether respondent entitled to indemnity costs sought Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), ss 125, 126, 195 and 196 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 102 Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225, applied Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2015] QCAT 439, related |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
APPLICANT: Mr C Wilson of counsel, instructed by Lander & Rogers.
RESPONDENT: Mr G Diehm QC of counsel, instructed by K & L Gates.
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]By a decision delivered on 16 September 2015, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) found that Dr Wong has an impairment, and required the parties to propose conditions to be imposed on Dr Wong’s registration.[1]
- [2]In delivering judgment, the primary ground for the Medical Board of Australia’s (Board) referral of the matter before the Tribunal was dismissed. The Tribunal did not find that Dr Wong had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct, and rejected the Board’s submission that Dr Wong’s registration should be cancelled.
- [3]The parties were directed by the Tribunal to confer as to the appropriate conditions. The parties were not able to reach agreement.
- [4]At the hearing before this Tribunal, each party proposed conditions and made submissions in support of those conditions. Whilst there was a significant degree of agreement in the conditions proposed, there were a number of areas of disagreement.
- [5]Given the decision of the Tribunal delivered on 16 September 2015, the matter currently before this Tribunal are the conditions to be imposed on Dr Wong’s registration because of his impairment. It is not appropriate in these proceedings to consider the imposition of conditions for any other reason. Based on the submissions made, there seems to have been acceptance by the parties that that was the only issue currently before the Tribunal.
- [6]On that basis, this Tribunal has considered the draft conditions and has determined that conditions in accordance with annexure A are the appropriate conditions to be imposed on Dr Wong’s registration. Some of the conditions are expressed slightly differently to those proposed by the parties. If either party considers there is a practical difficulty in carrying out any of the conditions then the parties are at liberty to approach the Tribunal.
- [7]It is appropriate to shortly outline the reasons for the Tribunal’s adoption of the conditions where there remained disagreement between the parties.
Medical treatment
- [8]The conditions proposed by each party contained different time periods for the reports of the treating psychiatrist to be provided to the Board. It was accepted by each party that the treating psychiatrist must report to the Board.
- [9]The issue in dispute was the intervals at which those reports should occur. The Board’s conditions for reporting were connected to the more prescriptive return to work regime proposed in its draft conditions. Dr Wong’s representatives proposed the fall-back position of reporting to the Board every three months. In view of the conclusions reached in terms of the return to work program as discussed below, the three month position proposed by Dr Wong appears to be appropriate for the prescribed reporting period.
- [10]The other issue in dispute in terms of these conditions related to the requirements for notification of the termination of the treating relationship and the appointment of new treating practitioners. It was submitted on behalf of Dr Wong that a time period of 48 hours did not allow sufficient time to engage a new treating practitioner. Given the importance of the relationship, it does seem that 48 hours would not allow sufficient time to potentially source a new treating practitioner. Further, given the agreed frequency of visits to the treating psychiatrist, there seems no justifiable reason for such a time pressure to be imposed.
Medication compliance
- [11]In terms of compliance with the medication regime, the issues in dispute were:
a) who should act as the observer of the taking of the medication; and
b) whether the logbook should be kept in a secure location.
- [12]In terms of the person who should act as observer, it was accepted by both parties that it was critical that both the taking of the medication and the recording of the taking of the medication be a manageable process. Whilst accepting that, the Board’s position was that Dr Wong’s wife was not the appropriate person. The Board considered that the critical role of observing compliance with his medication regime was best kept separate from the personal relationship between him and his wife. Whilst that may be desirable, the matter of critical importance is ensuring compliance with his medication regime, and that must be a manageable process. The presence of an observer must not stand in the way of the medication being taken. The Board suggested that the medication should be taken in front of a pharmacist but accepted that even that would have some inherent risk.
- [13]Given that under the proposed regime there will be a need for a logbook to be maintained and for the observer to sign the logbook, and given that Dr Wong’s wife is a medical practitioner, it is considered that the appointment of his wife as observer is appropriate. A very clear obligation is being imposed on his wife. His wife has provided an affidavit in these proceedings. She has agreed to directly supervise Dr Wong while he takes his medication, and has agreed to complete a logbook.
- [14]The conditions have been drafted so as to nominate Dr Wong’s wife as the principal observer and to require Dr Wong to seek approval from the Board for an alternative observer when his wife is unable to act.
- [15]Given the importance of the logbook and to ensure that all parties understand its importance, it is appropriate that the logbook at all times be kept in a secure location, which can include being kept in Dr Wong’s home.
Independent psychiatric review
- [16]The issue in dispute in terms of the independent psychiatric review is the timing of the first of such review. Given the checks and balances otherwise in the conditions, it is considered that a review six months after Dr Wong’s return to work would be satisfactory. If in that report there are any concerns raised in relation to Dr Wong’s treatment regime or more generally, then Dr Wong should be required to attend an independent review at 12 months after his return to work. Otherwise, the next independent review should be 12 months after the first review and every 12 months thereafter. Given the Board’s general power to request a review if there are reasonable grounds for concern, there would seem adequate checks and balances in the Board becoming informed.
Medical practice
- [17]Dr Wong’s representatives had proposed that Dr Wong work at McDowall Family Medical Centre. That practice had been nominated in the conditions proposed by Dr Wong. The curriculum vitae of Dr Norris Chern, one of the general practitioners of that practice, who has provided a letter agreeing to act as Dr Wong’s supervisor, was annexed to the affidavit of Mr Sivyer dated 31 July 2015. The Board did not place any material before this Tribunal as to why McDowall Family Medical Centre would not be an appropriate practice for Dr Wong. The Board also did not place any material before the Tribunal as to why Dr Chern would not be an appropriate supervisor.
- [18]In those circumstances, it would seem appropriate to approve Dr Wong working at that practice, or at such other practice as may be approved by the Board. It will also be appropriate to approve Dr Chern acting as his supervisor.
- [19]The other issue in dispute concerned the level of supervision. The Board contends for the equivalent of level 2 supervision pursuant to the Board’s Guidelines: Supervised Practice for International Medical Graduates.[2] Those guidelines, whilst helpful, are directed to addressing very different considerations to the considerations relevant in approving conditions for a general practitioner with an impairment.
- [20]In its submissions, the Board contended that the supervisor, together with Dr Wong, should have responsibility for each individual patient and should be primarily at the practice when Dr Wong is present.
- [21]In the draft conditions proposed on behalf of Dr Wong, it was acknowledged that the supervision proposed was effectively the equivalent of level 4 supervision.
- [22]Given the other checks and balances, it is considered that level 2 supervision is not necessary to deal with Dr Wong’s impairment. In terms of the role of the supervisor, the equivalent of level 4 supervision seems appropriate together with a requirement that Dr Wong only work at the practice at a time when another general practitioner is working.
Return to work program
- [23]The Board proposed conditions which provided for a prescriptive return to work program, varied only following review by an independent psychiatrist. Dr Wong’s proposed conditions sought to allow flexibility in hours worked and for the return to work program to be determined by the treating psychiatrist.
- [24]Based on the evidence given by Dr Harden, there seemed an acceptance that, with the other checks and balances proposed, there was no advantage in having another non-treating practitioner involved in decisions regarding Dr Wong’s return to work. Dr Harden said he was “less convinced that would be required given the other circumstances that have now been outlined”.[3] The other circumstances outlined were in line with the conditions proposed by Dr Wong. Dr Harden in particular referred to the importance of the Board having an ability to conduct an independent review at any time.
Review of conditions
- [25]Dr Wong’s proposed conditions sought to nominate a review period of two years. That period was nominated for the purposes of ss 125 and 126 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (National Law).
- [26]The Board sought to impose various time periods so as to allow review of certain conditions within two years, other conditions within five years and the remaining conditions within 15 years.
- [27]There seems no doubt on the evidence that there is an acceptance that Dr Wong’s psychiatric condition will remain with him for life and that he is likely to be subject to some conditions on his registration whilst he remains a registered medical practitioner. Those conditions might need to change over time.
- [28]There is a degree of uncertainty as to how Dr Wong will respond upon his commencing to return to practice. In those circumstances, it would be preferable if there was a more general review, if one is sought, within two years of returning to practice, rather than to prescribe that certain conditions are to remain in place for the next 15 years. In those circumstances, the Board’s prescription is unnecessarily inflexible.
Costs
- [29]Before this Tribunal, each party submitted that the other party should pay their costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
- [30]Mr Wilson, as counsel for the Board, in making his oral submissions submitted that the Tribunal’s power in this case to award costs was pursuant to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) and not under the National Law. Those submissions were made on the basis that the current proceedings were filed in the Tribunal on 1 July 2014, the day of the commencement of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act).
- [31]Mr Wilson submitted that, under the QCAT Act, the starting position seems to be that there should not be cost orders either way, unless the interests of justice dictate otherwise. He referred to the various subsections of s 102 including the nature and complexity of the dispute, the relevant strengths of the claims made by each of the parties to the proceeding and the catch-all of anything the Tribunal considers relevant. It was in reliance on those provisions that Mr Wilson sought costs on behalf of the Board.
- [32]In making his submissions, Mr Wilson said that reliance on the QCAT Act provisions arose as a result of the removal of s 195 from the National Law by the HO Act.[4] Section 195 had previously conferred on this Tribunal a very general discretion “to make any order about costs it considers appropriate for the proceedings.”
- [33]In making submissions on behalf of Dr Wong, Mr Diehm QC agreed the question of costs was to be determined under the QCAT Act provisions.
- [34]The transitional provisions contained in the amending legislation and in particular the provisions of s 311 make it clear that a current notification or other current matter must be dealt with under the law as amended by the HO Act, unless s 310 applied. Given that s 310 clearly does not apply, the relevant costs provisions are those contained in the QCAT Act. Pursuant to those provisions, it is necessary to determine whether it is in the interests of justice for costs to be awarded, and if so, given the submissions made, what are the appropriate terms of any costs order.
- [35]The referral to the Tribunal by the Board alleged that Dr Wong had behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, or alternatively unprofessional conduct, under the National Law. By the time the matter came on for hearing before the Tribunal, the Board did not seek a finding of professional misconduct, although it submitted such a finding was available under the third limb of the definition of “professional misconduct”.
- [36]In fact at the commencement of the hearing, the Board was given leave to amend the referral to allege that Dr Wong had an impairment as that term is defined under the National Law. The amendment was not opposed by Dr Wong because, as Deputy President Judge Horneman-Wren SC commented; “he not only considers that a decision of impairment is able to made under s 196(1), he contends that it is the only decision which should be made.”[5] That was in fact the decision made by the Tribunal.
- [37]That position had been very clearly set out on behalf of Dr Wong in a letter from his solicitors to the solicitors for the Board dated 9 December 2014. As Mr Diehm QC observed in his written submissions, the correspondence “urged the Board to abandon the pursuit of disciplinary proceedings against him [Dr Wong] founded as they were solely on the grounds of professional misconduct.” The correspondence confirmed the willingness of Dr Wong to cooperate in the process under the impairment provisions of the National Law that would see appropriate conditions imposed upon his registration.
- [38]The position stated in that correspondence was rather perfunctorily dismissed by the Board in correspondence by its previous solicitors dated 12 December 2014. Rather, the Board continued to pursue the disciplinary proceedings contending that Dr Wong was not a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.
- [39]That submission was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also rejected the Board’s submission that even if the Tribunal found Dr Wong to have an impairment, it should cancel his registration. Included in the reasons given by the Tribunal in rejecting that submission was that it “wholly ignores the medical evidence of his [Dr Wong’s] present capacity to practice, particularly that of the Board’s own expert”.[6]
- [40]Given the letter written on behalf of Dr Wong and the Tribunal’s findings, particularly that in relation to whether or not Dr Wong’s registration should be cancelled, this is a case where the award of indemnity costs, as requested by counsel for Dr Wong, requires careful consideration.
- [41]In seeking indemnity costs, reliance was placed on the wording of s 102(1) of the QCAT Act which enabled the Tribunal to make an order requiring one party to “pay all or a stated part of the costs” of the other party. Mr Diehm QC submitted those words were sufficiently broad to enable the making of an award of costs on an indemnity basis. In terms of the exercise of that discretion, he referred to one of the circumstances in which indemnity costs are commonly awarded being where proceedings were unnecessary and it was improper conduct of one of the parties that resulted in proceedings being brought.
- [42]Whilst the authorities differ on the test to be applied when considering an award of indemnity costs, the focus is on unreasonable conduct on behalf of the party against whom indemnity costs is being sought. It is accepted it is not necessary for there to be moral delinquency but the court does require some evidence of unreasonable conduct. In Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd,[7] Sheppard J noted some of the circumstances warranting the making of an indemnity costs order were the making of allegations of fraud which were either known to be false or were irrelevant; the engaging in misconduct that caused loss of time to the court and other parties; the commencement or continuation of proceedings for some ulterior motive or in wilful disregard of known facts or clearly established law; the making of allegations which ought never to have been made or the undue prolongation of a case by groundless contention; and an imprudent refusal of an offer to compromise.
- [43]In this case, the outcome indicates that the proceedings were probably largely unnecessary with the issue of impairment being a matter capable of being dealt with other than through the Tribunal, as Dr Wong’s solicitors had clearly advocated some considerable time earlier.
- [44]It is of course possible the parties might still have had to come to the Tribunal if the parties had been unable to agree suitable conditions; but that would have been for a more limited purpose.
- [45]Ultimately the Board were largely unsuccessful in its submissions as to conditions but in that regard it could not be said that the overall position taken by the Board was wholly unreasonable. In saying this, I am conscious of the fact that at least until the cross-examination of Dr Harden, the Board had some expert evidence that justified its position in relation to some of the conditions; albeit that the Board was late in obtaining that evidence and proposed the conditions initially in its absence.
- [46]I am also conscious of the fact that this was an unusual case involving very serious consequences for third parties. However, those considerations cannot permit the Board to ignore expert opinion and to dismiss out of hand a reasonable course of action proposed on behalf of a practitioner; particularly where the legislature has carefully created a regime for dealing with practitioners with an impairment.
- [47]In these circumstances, the appropriate order is that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs as agreed, or in default of agreement, to be assessed on a standard basis under the District Court scale of costs except for the period from 9 December 2014, being the date of the letter to the solicitors for the Board up until the decision of the Deputy President Judge Horneman-Wren SC made 16 September 2015, where the costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
Orders
- [48]Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that:
- Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), conditions be imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of annexure A to these orders.
- The applicant pay the respondent’s costs as agreed, or in default of agreement, to be assessed:
- on an indemnity basis for the period from 9 December 2014 to 16 September 2015; and
- otherwise on a standard basis under the District Court scale of costs.
- Liberty to apply.
ANNEXURE A
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
Upon Dr Wong gaining registration as a medical practitioner, his registration shall be subject to the following conditions.
Medical Treatment
- Prior to commencing practice, Dr Wong must:
- (a)be in an established treatment relationship with a general practitioner and psychiatrist;
- (b)provide the Medical Board of Australia (Board) details of:
- (i)his general practitioner (treating general practitioner) and his psychiatrist (treating psychiatrist)(together referred to as the treating practitioners); and
- (ii)his current medication regime.
- (i)
- (c)provide to the treating psychiatrist a written authority to report to the Board about his health or ability to practice medicine safely and to provide any reports to or other documents requested by the Board:
- (i)if Dr Wong becomes not fit to practice and the treating psychiatrist has advised him not to work;
- (ii)if the treating psychiatrist holds any concern about Dr Wong’s health or ability to practice medicine safely;
- (iii)if the treating psychiatrist has admitted Dr Wong to hospital;
- (iv)if Dr Wong fails to attend an appointment;
- (v)if Dr Wong terminates treatment;
- (vi)detailing the initial return to work program which the treating psychiatrist has approved and any variations to that program; and
- (vii)otherwise every three (3) months, with the report to advise as to Dr Wong’s compliance with these conditions and treatment including prescription of medication, the first of such regular reports to be given immediately following the second appointment after Dr Wong’s return to work.
- (i)
- (d)provide to the treating general practitioner a written authority to report to the Board about Dr Wong’s health or ability to practice medicine safely:
- (i)whenever requested by the Board; and
- (ii)whenever the treating general practitioner holds any concern about the practitioner’s health or ability to practice medicine safely.
- (i)
- (e)provide to the treating practitioners written authority to report to the Board about:
- (a)
- (i)the medications prescribed for Dr Wong; and
- (ii)any change to the medication prescribed for Dr Wong within seven (7) days of any such change.
- (f)provide to the treating practitioners a copy of the following documents (if such documents have not previously been provided):
- (i)these conditions;
- (ii)the decision and reasons for the decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in proceedings OCR142-14;
- (iii)the decision of the Mental Health Court dated 6 November 2013;
- (iv)all Mental Health Review Tribunal decisions;
- (v)all Clinical Reports associated with Dr Wong’s Forensic Order (FO) reviews; and
- (vi)all documentation relating to the imposition and the review of Dr Wong’s Limited Community Treatment Order (LCTO), including the conditions the LCTO is subject to.
- (i)
- (f)provide to the treating practitioners a copy of the following documents (if such documents have not previously been provided):
- Dr Wong must provide to the treating practitioners a copy of the following documents within seven (7) days of a review of Dr Wong’s FO or LCTO:
- (a)the Mental Health Review Tribunal decision;
- (b)all Clinical Reports associated with Dr Wong’s FO reviews; and
- (c)all documentation relating to Dr Wong’s LCTO review, including the conditions the LCTO is subject to.
- (a)
- The treating practitioners must not be a member of Dr Wong’s family nor a colleague working in the same practice as Dr Wong.
- Dr Wong must attend his treating psychiatrist no less frequently than once a month from the date of these conditions and on any other occasion when he is concerned as to the state of his mental health and must strictly comply with any treatment recommendations of the treating psychiatrist including his opinion about whether he is fit to practice.
- If the treating relationship with his treating practitioners terminates for any reason (the termination), Dr Wong must within seven (7) days of the termination:
- (a)notify the Board of the termination;
- (b)retain another practitioner as his treating general practitioner or treating psychiatrist; and
- (c)notify the Board of the details of the new treating practitioner.
- (a)
- If the treating psychiatrist is temporarily absent from practice for any period preventing Dr Wong attending upon him as required by these conditions, Dr Wong must attend upon another psychiatrist approved by the Board and authorise that psychiatrist to report to the Board following such attendance.
- If Dr Wong changes either of his treating practitioners, at the commencement of the new treating relationship, Dr Wong must provide to his new treating practitioner:
- (a)copies of all documents required to be given to the previous treating practitioners under these conditions; and
- (b)a written authority to report to the Board in the terms required by these conditions.
- (a)
- Dr Wong must notify the Board immediately:
- (a)If he is aware of a material change in his psychiatric health; and
- (b)if there is any change in his medication regime, including full details of the medication changes.
- (a)
Medication compliance
- Dr Wong must take all medication, be it in oral or injectable form, prescribed by his treating psychiatrist under the direct supervision of Dr Riani Wong, or such other person as nominated by Dr Wong and approved in writing by the Board in accordance with these conditions.
- If Dr Wong does not take or administer all the medication prescribed by his treating psychiatrist for two (2) days, he must:
- (a)cease practice immediately;
- (b)inform the Board;
- (c)attend his psychiatrist for immediate review; and
- (d)not return to practice until he has been assessed as fit to do so by his treating psychiatrist.
- (a)
- Dr Wong must nominate, and the Board must approve at least one other observer to act at such times as and when Dr Riani Wong is not available to supervise the taking of the medication in accordance with these conditions. The nomination submitted by Dr Wong must identify the nature of the relationship, if any, with Dr Wong, be accompanied by the curriculum vitae of the person being nominated and a signed authority by that person accepting the nomination.
- An observer pursuant to the terms of these conditions may be a relative or social acquaintance of Dr Wong and need not be a registered health practitioner.
- At all times there must be at least two observers approved by the Board. If either observer become unable to continue acting for any reason, Dr Wong must within 48 hours of them ceasing to be able to act:
- (a)notify the Board; and
- (b)nominate another observer to act in their place.
- Dr Wong must maintain a logbook that:
- (a)records the medication prescribed by the treating psychiatrist;
- (b)records an entry for each occasion that medication prescribed by the treating psychiatrist is consumed by Dr Wong, with each entry:
- (a)
- (i)to contain the date, time, place and the type and amount of medication consumed; and
- (ii)to be signed by Dr Wong and the observer confirming the correctness of the details recorded for the entry.
- Dr Wong must provide a certified copy of the logbook:
- (a)to the Board:
- (i)within three (3) days of the end of each month; and
- (ii)whenever requested by the Board; and
- (i)
- (b)to the treating psychiatrist at each appointment.
- (a)
- Dr Wong must make the original logbook available for inspection, if requested by the Board.
- Dr Wong must keep the logbook in a secure location, which location can include a location at the residence of Dr Wong.
drug screening
- Dr Wong must attend for drug screening to ensure compliance with the medication prescribed by his treating psychiatrist.
- The type of drug screening to be carried out is to be as the Board determines as being reasonably necessary based on:
- (a)information provided by Dr Wong’s treating practitioners about the medication prescribed; and
- (b)the opinion of pathologists about the appropriate pathological testing to detect the medication.
- (a)
- The drug screening will take place at a frequency and at times to be determined by the Board.
- The drug screening will occur in accordance with the relevant drug screening policy of the Board.
Independent psychiatric review
- Dr Wong must attend for independent psychiatric review by a psychiatrist nominated by the Board (the independent psychiatrist):
- (a)six (6) months from the commencement date of the return to work program referred to in these conditions;
- (b)annually thereafter; and
- (c)otherwise on any occasion:
- (i)that the Board has reasonable grounds for concern as a result of a notification to the Board under these conditions that Dr Wong may not be fit to practice; or
- (ii)where Dr Wong is continuing to or is resuming practice after any further break from practice subsequent to his initial return to practice; or
- (iii)as required in order to comply with condition 39 below.
- (i)
- (a)
- Dr Wong consents to the Board providing the independent psychiatrist with a brief of evidence relating to his health and disciplinary history.
- Dr Wong consents to the independent psychiatrist:
- (a)reviewing and assessing Dr Wong's health and ability to practice medicine safely; and
- (b)providing a written report to the Board and the treating psychiatrist.
- (a)
medical practice
- Dr Wong must only work:
- (a)at McDowall Family Medical Centre while that practice satisfies condition 25(d) and 31(a) below; or
- (b)otherwise at a practice approved by the Board; and
- (c)subject to supervision as described herein; and
- (d)at a general practice where not less than two full-time registered general practitioners practice (or the equivalent of two full-time general practitioners) (which practitioners do not include Dr Wong); and
- (e)when another registered general practitioner is present at the practice.
- (a)
- Dr Wong is to provide each of the general practitioners and the practice manager (if any) at any practice where he is working copies of the following documents:
- (a)these conditions;
- (b)the medical assessment report prepared by Dr Scott Harden dated 29 June 2015;
- (c)the decision of the Mental Health Court dated 6 November 2013; and
- (d)the decision and reasons for decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in proceedings OCR142-14.
- (a)
- Dr Wong must provide written authority for each of the general practitioners at the approved practice and the practice manager (if any) to immediately contact Dr Wong’s treating practitioners and/or the Board if they hold concerns regarding Dr Wong’s health or ability to practice medicine safely.
- Dr Wong authorises the Board to inform the approved practice if, in the opinion of the treating psychiatrist, he is not fit to practise and/or has been admitted to a hospital for treatment.
- If Dr Wong’s employment at the approved practice terminates (for any reason), Dr Wong must inform the Board within seven (7) days.
- In seeking approval from the Board of any alternate practice, Dr Wong must provide to the Board the curriculum vitae of each of the general practitioners working at the practice and such other material as the Board may reasonably request.
Supervision
- Dr Wong must work under the following supervision:
- (a)the principal, and any temporary, supervisor must work in the same general practice as Dr Wong;
- (b)the principal supervisor must be available for consultation, either in person or by telephone, if Dr Wong requires assistance; and
- (c)the principal supervisor must periodically conduct a review of Dr Wong’s practice.
- (a)
- While Dr Wong is working at McDowall Family Medical Centre, the principal supervisor is to be Dr Norris Chern. Upon Dr Wong commencing to practice, Dr Chern must provide to the Board a signed acknowledgement of his responsibilities and obligations pursuant to the terms of these conditions.
- The principal supervisor must notify the Board of the nominated temporary supervisor who will act during any absences, planned or unplanned, of the principal supervisor from the practice. The principal supervisor must provide to the Board a copy of the nominated practitioner’s curriculum vitae and a signed authority by the practitioner accepting the nomination and acknowledging the terms of these conditions. While acting in the position of supervisor, the temporary supervisor shall have all the responsibilities and obligations of the principal supervisor.
- In seeking the approval of the Board to an alternate practice, Dr Wong must provide to the Board the details of the registered general practitioner in the practice who has agreed to act as principal supervisor and must provide a signed authority by the practitioner accepting the nomination and acknowledging the terms of these conditions.
- Upon Dr Wong commencing at the practice, the principal supervisor must nominate to the Board a temporary supervisor in the manner and for the purposes detailed above.
- If the principal supervisor terminates the supervision relationship (for any reason), Dr Wong must notify the Board immediately and must cease practicing until the Board approves a new principal supervisor.
- Dr Wong must authorise the principal supervisor to report in writing to the Board about Dr Wong’s health or ability to practise medicine safely at the following intervals:
- (a)every month for the first three (3) months of returning to practice;
- (b)every three (3) months thereafter; and/or
- (c)when reasonably requested to do so by the Board.
- (a)
Return to work program
- Dr Wong may only return to practice working a maximum number of hours per day and days per week as approved by his treating psychiatrist from time to time and notified by Dr Wong and his treating psychiatrist to the Board and to all the practitioners and practice manager (if any) working at the practice where Dr Wong is working.
- The number of hours worked cannot be increased by the treating psychiatrist above three (3) full days per week without a report from the independent psychiatrist approving the proposed increase having been provided to the Board.
COSTS
- The practitioner must pay any costs associated with complying with these conditions.
Review of conditions
- The review period for these conditions is two (2) years.