Legal Case Commentary | Brad Wright - Barrister

4 02, 2014

WHITENING BY NON DENTISTS

February 4th, 2014|

WHITENING BY NON DENTISTS For those interested in such things, an ongoing case about the appeal of a decision relating to teeth whitening material pursuant to the section

Previous 12

Brad Wright - Barrister

2 months ago

Had to go to the NY Times to get this news of Dr Warren’s passing. How many people had a better life because of these two. ... See MoreSee Less

J. Robin Warren, Who Proved That Bacteria Cause Ulcers, Dies at 87

www.nytimes.com

He endured skepticism but won a Nobel Prize for his work upending the conventional wisdom that stress, diet or alcohol caused the painful condition.

View on Facebook

Brad Wright - Barrister

2 months ago

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 ?A reprimand is a chastisement for conduct; a formal rebuke. Reprimands issued since the start of the National Scheme are published on the National Registers of Practitioners. It can be imposed in a Tribunal in a prosecution or can be imposed by a Board Panel.The Boards seem to take the view that the reprimand to be effective must be published on the register. This means any person – including health funds- can see the fact that person has been reprimanded.Tribunals and Courts have consistently found that a reprimand is not a trivial penalty and that it had the potential for serious adverse implications to a professional person.The period of the reprimands visibility on the register is often a matter of dispute.Section 226(3) of the National Law gives the Board a discretion to remove the fact of a reprimand from the National Register “if it considers it is no longer necessary or appropriate.” In Health Ombudsman v HNH [2021] QCAT 235 at [36] the Tribunal observedThe Tribunal has no power to make any order as to how long the reprimand of the respondent remains recorded on the register. That is a decision for the Board. However, there is no prohibition on the Tribunal expressing a view on such matter, providing it is clear that the ultimate determination of such matter remains solely a matter for the Board. In other decisions Tribunals have made similar recommendations to that in Medical Board of Australia v YOS [2023] QCAT 164 and Medical Board of Australia v Kyaw [2016] QCAT 34 at [28].𝗣𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡Health Practitioners agreeing to reprimands should be aware that if the matter is before a Tribunal, the Tribunal may not be persuaded that it can set an end of publication date for the reprimand, but may express a recommendation of a lesser period.If the reprimand is imposed by a Council or Board Panel rather than a Tribunal it may be argued that the Board or Tribunal has the power to set an end of publication date and is a matter of policy for the Board or Council. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

Brad Wright - Barrister

3 months ago

𝙍𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙉𝙤 𝙄𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚Each year when health practitioners complete their re-registration there are a number of declarations to be madeOne of these is in relation to professional indemnity insurance.The policy reason behind the requirement for PI Insurance is simply that patients need to be assured that if there is a personal injury claim made as a result of the treatment by a practitioner, they can be reasonably assured that there is a policy that will cover any likely claim. In other words, part of the requirement for public protection is assurance that a patient will not be at a disadvantage where they might have to rely on personal capacity to pay for injuries by a health practitioner.By way of example, a health practitioner may have a claim made against them for significant sum, but the practitioner has no PI insurance and so the patient may not get satisfaction of the claim because the health practitioner does not have the resources to pay the settled claim.This is the reason that a declaration is made.In Dental Board of Australia v Prasad (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 342, these issues were canvassed as part of a range of disciplinary matters When a practitioner has no PI insurance and does not notify the board/AHPRA (see section 130 of the National Law in each state), a number of matters flow.There will be an allegation of a failure to hold professional indemnity insurance and make false declaration to the Board and a failure to self-notify about the lack of insurance.These are serious matters which may lead to cancellation or suspension of practice.In Dental Board of Australia v Prasad, the breaches were discovered by way of audit. Unfortunately this occurs regularly and can easily be avoided. Ensure before you make the declaration as to indemnity insurance that you check that you have a current policy.Ensure you use a proper robust email server for receiving professional emails and check spam and junk regularly.If you have a direct debit arrangement, either periodic or single payment then you have responsibility to reconcile this and make relevant enquiries as to currency – better to pay the entirety to the indemnifier and finance other ways rather than periodic debits.Identify and keep that certificate of insurance where it can be located.If you cannot locate a certificate of insurance, then seek immediate advice from your peer advisor or indemnifier.Do not make a declaration about any matter unless you are certain it is true.If in doubt seek proper expert legal advice. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook