Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
Moore v Medical Board of Australia QCAT 186
Moore v Medical Board of Australia  QCAT 186
Medical Board of Australia
Occupational regulation matters
On the papers
Judge Suzanne Sheridan, Deputy President
20 July 2016
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – LICENSES AND REGISTRATION – OTHER MATTERS – where the Medical Board of Australia cautioned and imposed conditions on the registration of the registrant – where registrant seeks review of the conditions imposed – where the registrant seeks a stay of the Medical Board of Australia’s decision – where the stay does not expose the public to any particular risk – whether the stay should be granted
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), s 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), ss 22 and 32
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
- On 6 April 2016, the Medical Board of Australia (Board) cautioned and imposed conditions on the registration of the applicant, general practitioner Dr Stephen Moore, because the Board believed that the way in which Dr Moore had practised his profession was unsatisfactory. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency notified Dr Moore of the Board’s decision by letter dated 7 May 2016.
- The conditions imposed required Dr Moore to nominate for the approval of the Board an education program addressing appropriate and respectful communication with patients, dealing with difficult patients, and situations of conflict. Dr Moore was to nominate that course within 28 days. The conditions further required that within six months of the Board’s approval of the course, Dr Moore was to satisfactorily complete the course and provide written evidence of its completion to the Board.
- On 19 May 2016, Dr Moore filed in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) an application seeking a review of the Board’s decision. In that application he accepted that his conduct was less than satisfactory, but contended that in light of his 40 year unblemished practice and various mitigating circumstances, the imposition of a condition requiring completion of an education course was unnecessary.
- On 31 May 2016, Dr Moore filed an application for a stay of the Board’s decision pending resolution of the review application. Directions made by the Tribunal at a directions hearing in the matter provided for the making of submissions in relation to the application for a stay, and by agreement for the application to be subsequently determined on the papers.
- The Tribunal may only make an order staying the operation of a reviewable decision if it considers it desirable after having regard to the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of the order or the order not being made, any submission made by the decision maker, and the public interest. The Board has made no submissions.
- I am of the view that the stay should be granted. Without a stay of the Board’s decision, the conditions require Dr Moore to nominate a course within 28 days of the Board’s decision and then to undertake and complete that course within six months of approval. In order to comply with the conditions in the event that they are not removed, Dr Moore is likely to be required to undertake the course prior to the resolution of the substantive review. In the event that he is ultimately successful, he will have gone to unnecessary effort and expense.
- The purpose for the imposition of conditions by a National Board is to ensure that health services are provided safely, and are of an appropriate quality. The events which led to the imposition of conditions upon Dr Moore’s registration concern his interactions with a patient in December 2013. Dr Moore has practised since that time without incident, unrestricted, and without the benefit of the educational course required by the conditions. If Dr Moore is unsuccessful in the substantive review, then having delayed the requirement to undertake the course until after the Tribunal’s determination will not have had any significant adverse impact on the public interest.
- For these reasons, I would grant the stay.
- Published Case Name:
Moore v Medical Board of Australia
- Shortened Case Name:
Moore v Medical Board of Australia
 QCAT 186
20 Jul 2016