New South Wales
Medical Tribunal
CITATION: HCCC v Dr Adrian Cohen [2007] NSWMT 6 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal PARTIES: Health Care Complaints Commission
Dr Adrian CohenFILE NUMBER(S): 40007 of 2006 CORAM: Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ - Giuffrida, Dr M - Ng, Dr J - Ettinger, Ms G CATCHWORDS: Self prescribing - Misuse of the prescribing system - Failure to keep adequate drug register - Dishonestly purchase wholesale drugs without a licence LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW) SS36 37 & 64
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW)
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 1994CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336;
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630;
exparte Tziniolis: re Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448DATES OF HEARING: 29.1.2007 to 31.1.2007 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 4 April 2007 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: G A Farmer of counsel
M Ainslworth of counselORDERS: 1. The respondent be reprimanded;; 2. The respondent’s practice be supervised by a practitioner nominated by the respondent from a list of suitable practitioners provided to him by the Medical Board. The list is to be provided within twenty-eight [28] days of this order and the respondent must nominate a supervisor within fourteen [14] days of the provision of that list. Failing such nomination by the respondent, the supervisor be a person determined by the New South Wales Medical Board;; 3. The supervision will be no less than monthly and will include (but be not limited to) an inspection of records kept in the course of the respondent’s practice and any and all drug registers maintained by him and discussion with the supervisor of the various legislative and regulatory requirements attendant on proper medical practice;; 4. The supervisor will provide a monthly report to the NSW Medical Board on the fact of the supervision and the matters discussed during the meetings;; 5. The supervisor will promptly report to the NSW Medical Board any irregularity in the practice of the respondent revealed during the period of supervision;; 6. Any cost associated with the supervision be borne by the respondent;; 7. The supervision will be for a period of twelve [12] months from the date of nomination of a supervisor;; 8. For a period of twelve [12] months from the date of these orders, the respondent submit to thrice weekly urinalyses for the detection of drug use or some other form of testing acceptable to the New South Wales Medical Board and the respondent will bear the cost of these tests;; 9. For a period of twelve [12] months from the date of these orders, the respondent will attend on a psychiatrist specialising in matters of Drug and Alcohol addiction to discuss issues of drug addiction and relapse prevention strategies;; 10. Within twenty-eight [28] days of the making of these orders, the respondent will nominate a psychiatrist from a list provided by the NSW Medical Board. The list is to be provided within twenty-eight [28] days of this order and the respondent must nominate…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read HCCC v Dr Adrian Cohen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] NSWMT 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that Dr Cohen's conduct did indeed amount to professional misconduct. It was established that he had self-prescribed controlled substances, thereby breaching ethical standards and legal requirements. Furthermore, Dr Cohen failed to maintain proper drug registers, which is a critical component of ensuring transparency and accountability in the prescription of controlled substances. Additionally, his purchase of wholesale drugs without a valid licence was found to be dishonest, further compounding the seriousness of his misconduct. The court emphasised the importance of these regulatory frameworks in protecting public health and maintaining professional integrity within the medical community. Given the gravity of the breaches and their potential impact on patient safety and public trust, the court determined that disciplinary action was necessary.
The court ordered a range of disciplinary measures, including a reprimand, supervised practice, regular drug testing, psychiatric evaluation, and financial penalties. Dr Cohen is required to be supervised by a practitioner nominated from a list provided by the Medical Board, with monthly inspections of his records and drug registers. He must also undergo thrice-weekly urinalysis or other acceptable drug testing for a year, and attend sessions with a psychiatrist specialising in drug and alcohol addiction. Additionally, Dr Cohen is required to pay a fine of $15,000 and the costs associated with the proceedings. These measures aim to ensure that Dr Cohen rectifies his professional conduct and prevents any recurrence of similar misconduct in the future.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent be reprimanded;; 2. The respondent’s practice be supervised by a practitioner nominated by the respondent from a list of suitable practitioners provided to him by the Medical Board. The list is to be provided within twenty-eight [28] days of this order and the respondent must nominate a supervisor within fourteen [14] days of the provision of that list. Failing such nomination by the respondent, the supervisor be a person determined by the New South Wales Medical Board;; 3. The supervision will be no less than monthly and will include (but be not limited to) an inspection of records kept in the course of the respondent’s practice and any and all drug registers maintained by him and discussion with the supervisor of the various legislative and regulatory requirements attendant on proper medical practice;; 4. The supervisor will provide a monthly report to the NSW Medical Board on the fact of the supervision and the matters discussed during the meetings;; 5. The supervisor will promptly report to the NSW Medical Board any irregularity in the practice of the respondent revealed during the period of supervision;; 6. Any cost associated with the supervision be borne by the respondent;; 7. The supervision will be for a period of twelve [12] months from the date of nomination of a supervisor;; 8. For a period of twelve [12] months from the date of these orders, the respondent submit to thrice weekly urinalyses for the detection of drug use or some other form of testing acceptable to the New South Wales Medical Board and the respondent will bear the cost of these tests;; 9. For a period of twelve [12] months from the date of these orders, the respondent will attend on a psychiatrist specialising in matters of Drug and Alcohol addiction to discuss issues of drug addiction and relapse prevention strategies;; 10. Within twenty-eight [28] days of the making of these orders, the respondent will nominate a psychiatrist from a list provided by the NSW Medical Board. The list is to be provided within twenty-eight [28] days of this order and the respondent must nominate a psychiatrist within fourteen [14] days of the provision of that list. Failing such nomination by the respondent, the psychiatrist will be a person determined by the New South Wales Medical Board;; 11. The number of attendances will be determined by the psychiatrist nominated who will report the fact of the attendances to the New South Wales Medical Board;; 12. The cost of attendance on the psychiatrist will be borne by the respondent.; 13. The respondent pay a fine of $15,000 within two [2] months of 4th April 2007;; 14. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.