HCCC v Dr Alex Simring

Case [2010] NSWMT 7

New South Wales


Medical Tribunal


CITATION: HCCC v Dr Alex Simring [2010] NSWMT 7
TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal
PARTIES: Health Care Complaints Commission
Dr Alex Amadeus Simring
FILE NUMBER(S): 40019 of 2009
CORAM: Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ - Anderson, Dr P - Sammut, Dr J - Ettinger, Ms G
CATCHWORDS: Child pornography convictions - Failure to advise the NSW Medical Board of criminal convictions - Professional miscondict and unsatisfactory professional conduct - Reprimand - Conditions placed on practice - 'In the practice of medicine' - relationship between conduct constituting an offence and the provision of professional services - "prohibited person " classification places restriction on the practice of medicine which is conduct relating to the practice of medicine - good character - defect of character
LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 ss 127B , 39(a), 64(1)(c), 36 & 37
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s91H(3)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Clth) s474
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 362;
Diretor-General, Department of Community Services; re Sophie [2008] NSWCA 250;
In re Dr Abraham Stephanopoulos [2006] MPBV 12;
A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society refer to judgment of the High Court [2004] HCA 1 @ para 33;
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Suprme Court of NSW (1957) 97 CLR 279;
HCCC v Wingate [2007] NSWCA 326;
Roylance v The General Medical Council [1999] UKPC 16;
Marten v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Disciplinary Committee [1966] 1 QB 1;
NSW Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284;
In re James Benedict Anton Provan [2005] PRBD (Victim) 3;
ex parte Tziniolis: re Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR(NSW) 448;
HCCC v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267;
McBride v Walton (unreported NSWCA 15th July 1994);
In the matter of Roderick Doyle Motum; Medical Tribunal of NSW 4013 of 1999
DATES OF HEARING: 22.3.2010 to 23.3.2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29 April 2010
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: G Farmer of Counsel
R Lewis Solicitor - Health Care Complaints Commission
G Butler
D Brown Solicitor - Browns Legal and Consulting
ORDERS: 1.The respondent be subject to a reprimand; Practice Conditions; 2.The respondent's registration as a medical practitioner be subject to the following conditions; (i)the respondent must not attend, treat or perform procedures on patients under 18 years of age.; (ii)The practitioner may provide treatment to a person under the age of 18 years in the event of a medical emergency and where it is not possible or reasonable to have a patient with a serious or life-threatening or urgent condition treated by another medical practitioner or transferred to the nearest hospital. If any such even occurs, the practitioner must notify the NSW Medical Board with 7 days and provide details of the event to the NSW Medical Board and any other information as requested by the NSW Medical Board; (iii)To obtain the approval of the NSW Medical Board prior to commencing practice or changing the nature or place of practice; 3.Within 14 days of these…

Continue reading HCCC v Dr Alex Simring

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
HCCC v Dr Alex Simring [2010] NSWMT 7
Case
[2010] NSWMT 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of HCCC v Dr Alex Simring involves the Health Care Complaints Commission bringing charges against Dr Simring for failure to disclose his criminal convictions to the NSW Medical Board. Dr Simring was charged with professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard the matter and found Dr Simring guilty on both charges. The Tribunal ordered a reprimand, imposed several conditions on his practice, and mandated treatment for his sexual offending and dysfunction. The Tribunal also required Dr Simring to obtain approval from the NSW Medical Board before commencing or changing his practice and to allow the Board to notify his employer of any issues arising from his compliance with the conditions.
The key legal issues the Tribunal had to decide were whether the conduct of Dr Simring constituted professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct under the National Law, and if so, what the appropriate sanctions should be. The Tribunal found that Dr Simring's failure to disclose his criminal convictions to the NSW Medical Board constituted professional misconduct, as it demonstrated a disregard for the fundamental principles of the medical profession and was likely to undermine public confidence in the profession. The Tribunal also found that Dr Simring's possession of child pornography constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct, as it demonstrated a lack of integrity and reliability and was incompatible with the proper discharge of his professional duties.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the principles of good character and the relationship between Dr Simring's criminal conduct and his practice as a medical practitioner. The Tribunal found that the "prohibited person" classification placed by the NSW Medical Board on Dr Simring was a restriction on the practice of medicine, which was conduct relating to the practice of medicine. The Tribunal also found that Dr Simring's conduct demonstrated a defect of character and was incompatible with the proper discharge of his professional duties. The Tribunal considered the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sanctions, and ultimately ordered a reprimand, practice conditions, and treatment for Dr Simring's sexual offending and dysfunction.
In summary, the Tribunal found Dr Simring guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct and imposed several conditions on his practice, including restrictions on treating patients under 18 years of age, mandatory treatment for his sexual offending and dysfunction, and approval from the NSW Medical Board before commencing or changing his practice. The Tribunal also ordered Dr Simring to pay the costs of the hearing. The case highlights the importance of good character and integrity in the medical profession and the consequences of failing to disclose criminal convictions to the relevant professional body.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The respondent be subject to a reprimand; Practice Conditions; 2.The respondent's registration as a medical practitioner be subject to the following conditions; (i)the respondent must not attend, treat or perform procedures on patients under 18 years of age.; (ii)The practitioner may provide treatment to a person under the age of 18 years in the event of a medical emergency and where it is not possible or reasonable to have a patient with a serious or life-threatening or urgent condition treated by another medical practitioner or transferred to the nearest hospital. If any such even occurs, the practitioner must notify the NSW Medical Board with 7 days and provide details of the event to the NSW Medical Board and any other information as requested by the NSW Medical Board; (iii)To obtain the approval of the NSW Medical Board prior to commencing practice or changing the nature or place of practice; 3.Within 14 days of these orders, the respondent nominate a psychiatrist with expertise in sexual offending and dysfunction and will attend for treatment at a frequency to be determined by the psychiatrist. The respondent to authorise the nominated treating psychiatrist to notify the NSW Medical Board in the event that the respondent fails to attend for treatment as arranged, terminates treatment or if there is a significant change in the respondent's health; 4.The respondent to attend a psychiatrist nominated by the NSW Medical Board for risk assessment prior to any Board interview or as directed by the NSW Medical Board. The NSW Medical Board to bear the expense of the respondent's attendance on the psychiatrist; 5.The NSW Medical Board may notify the respondent's employer/s of any issues arising in relation to his compliance with these conditions; 6.The respondent to authorise the NSW Medical Board and consents to any exchange of information between it and Medicare Australia where the exchange is necessary to facilitate the monitoring of compliance with these conditions; 7.The respondent authorises the NSW Medical Board to provide a copy of the Medical Tribunal Reasons for Determination to any treating practitioners and any reports that the NSW Medical Board considers appropriate; 8.The respondent provide a copy of the Practice Conditions signed by his employer within 7 days of these orders and within 7 days of the commencement of any employment; 9.The NSW Medical Board to be the review body in relation to these conditions; 10.The respondent to provide a copy of the Medical Tribunal's reasons for Determination in this matter to his employer and/or employees; 11.The respondent pay the costs of the hearing

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.