Health Ombudsman v Gindi - [2021] QCAT 372

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Gindi [2021] QCAT 372

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

MAGDI GINDI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR303-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2021 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Professor Peter Baker
Ms April Blair

Dr Diana Khursandi

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration as follows:

1.    The practitioner must not perform any cosmetic surgery procedures (including the use of the DEKA Smartlipo and DEKA SmartXide and similar machines).

2.    The practitioner must not perform, whether for cosmetic or any other reason, a labiaplasty or another surgical procedure on a person’s vaginal area. (For the avoidance of doubt, the practitioner is permitted to perform pap smear tests as well as insertion and removal of intrauterine devices).

3.    The practitioner must not perform, whether for cosmetic or any other reason, any breast surgery.

4. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law part 7, division 11, subdivision 2, should apply to the conditions and the review period should be five years.

5.       No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where the respondent is a medical practitioner specialising as a general practitioner – where the referral relates to the respondent’s procedural decision-making and professional skill in relation to five patients – where the referral also relates to a further minor boundary violation concerning a comment made on a patient’s Facebook account – where the parties partially agree – whether the respondent’s conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – what sanction should be imposed

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 103, s 104, s 107

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 5, s 156

Dental Board of Australia v Abdullah (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 19
Fittock v Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner (No 2) [2015] SASCFC 167
Health Ombudsman v Mutasa [2019] QCAT 315

Health Ombudsman v Thompson [2020] QCAT 145

Medical Board of Australia v Holding [2014] QCAT 632
Palser v Grinling [1949] AC 291
Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197
Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australian Meat Industry Employees Union (1979) 27 ALR 367

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C Templeton instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

JR Jones instructed by Avant Law

REASONS FOR DECISION

The disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal have proceeded on the basis of an amended application or referral filed by the applicant director on 1 April 2021, pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013( the HO Act), which seeks…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Gindi 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QCAT 372
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns disciplinary proceedings against a general practitioner, Dr Magdi Gindi, who has been found to have engaged in professional misconduct by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The proceedings were initiated by the Health Ombudsman, who referred the matter to the Tribunal under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld). The Tribunal found that Dr Gindi’s conduct in relation to five patients, over a period of time between 2011 and 2013, fell below the standard reasonably expected of a medical practitioner of equivalent training and experience. The Tribunal concluded that the admitted conduct amounted to professional misconduct and imposed conditions on Dr Gindi’s registration, prohibiting him from performing certain cosmetic surgery procedures. The Tribunal also reprimanded Dr Gindi and ordered that the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law apply to the conditions, with a review period of five years. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining professional standards and protecting public safety in the healthcare industry.

Orders