Bellamy v Professional Services Review Committee No. 345

[2006] FCA 1283

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bellamy v Professional Services Review Committee No. 345 [2006] FCA 1283

LYNETTE MAREE BELLAMY v ROBYN NAPIER, KATHLEEN ELIZABETH KEATING AND XUYEN THI TRAN CONSTITUTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 345
NSD 1850 OF 2006

GRAHAM J
21 SEPTEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1850 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	LYNETTE MAREE BELLAMY Applicant
AND:	ROBYN NAPIER, KATHLEEN ELIZABETH KEATING AND XUYEN THI TRAN CONSTITUTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 345 Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 SEPTEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed. 

2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1850 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	LYNETTE MAREE BELLAMY Applicant
AND:	ROBYN NAPIER, KATHLEEN ELIZABETH KEATING AND XUYEN THI TRAN CONSTITUTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 345 Respondent

JUDGE:	GRAHAM J
DATE:	21 SEPTEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a medical practitioner who has been served with a notice under s 102(4) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (‘the Act’) requiring her to attend before a professional services review committee known as Professional Services Review Committee No. 345 (‘the Review Committee’) tomorrow morning at 9.00 am at 80 William Street, Sydney. The requirement of the notice is that she:

   ·appear at each day of the hearing; and

   ·give evidence to the Committee as required.

2. Notice of the hearing tomorrow was given at some stage between 8 August and presumably 15 August 2006.  I gather that the applicant then departed for overseas for about a month. 

3. For reasons which are difficult to comprehend she had a pre‑existing arrangement to attend an in-house conference of the Ramsay Health Care Group on the Gold Coast between Wednesday 20 September and Friday 22 September 2006 about which she took no action before her departure for overseas. 

4. She has a commitment, so it is said, to speak at the conference for a second time between 8.30 am and 10.00  am tomorrow, 22 September 2006.  No attempts have apparently been made to re-organise the conference program to allow her to discharge her commitment at a time which would permit her to meet her obligations in respect of the notice served upon her to which I have referred. 

5. It is clear that there has been some element of confusion as to exactly what was going to happen at the hearing before the Review Committee tomorrow. 

6. It was only two days ago, I understand, that the applicant made known her difficulties for tomorrow morning and it was equally only two days ago that there was apparently a final resolution as to exactly what the committee was going to review.

7. Apparently in the year 2000 - 2001 the applicant provided some 1,032 services which came within item 54 of the Medicare Benefit Schedule.  It has now been made clear that the Review Committee only intends to explore 40 particular cases out of those 1,032 and does not intend to treat the 40 as a sample which would permit extrapolation of the findings across the entire 1,032 services.  It was only on Tuesday that the Committee indicated that it had no intention of examining any of the services in the 40 cases at tomorrow’s hearing.  The purpose of tomorrow’s hearing has been identified as addressing the ‘usual preliminary matters’ and also matters relevant to the adjudicative referral, including the nature of Dr Bellamy’s practice, her training and experience, practice background, patient base, facilities available during the referral period, staffing, practice hours and routines etc. 

8. There is some disagreement as to whether or not the matter which is to be addressed tomorrow can conveniently be dealt with in less than a day, or more particularly, in a hearing which may only commence at 2.15 pm.  The applicant seeks relief that in effect the respondents refrain from proceeding with the hearing at the appointed time of 9.00 am tomorrow and defer the commencement of the hearing until 2.15 pm. 

9. It is clear that preliminary matters occupy different amounts of time in different circumstances.  It would appear that in many instances they occupy about half a day but sometimes as little as one hour.  It is anticipated that the hearing tomorrow will require four hours. 

10. No reason whatsoever is advanced as to why it would be unjust for the Review Committee to proceed with the hearing at the appointed time in circumstances where the applicant has had over a month’s notice of the intended hearing time.  In my opinion, the application has no merit and should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham.

Associate:

Dated:        27 September 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr C D Jackson
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ebsworth & Ebsworth
Counsel for the Respondent:	Dr J D Renwick
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison
Date of Hearing:	21 September 2006
Date of Judgment:	21 September 2006