Hill v Keith

[2002] FCAFC 7

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hill v Keith [2002] FCAFC 7

Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) ss 3F, 82, 86, 93, 105(3), 106Q

Hill v Holmes [1999] FCA 760 cited
Health Insurance Commission v Grey [2002] FCAFC 130 followed
Tankey v Adams (2000) 104 FCR 152 followed
Transurban City Link Ltd v Allan (1999) 95 FCR 553 applied

WILVENE LESLEY EVYLINE HILL v ALAN KEITH
V 759 OF 2001

BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG and ALLSOP JJ
20 AUGUST 2002
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 759 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WILVENE LESLEY EVYLINE HILL APPELLANT
AND:	ALAN KEITH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG and ALLSOP JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	20 AUGUST 2002
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed.

2.        The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 759 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	WILVENE LESLEY EVYLINE HILL APPELLANT
AND:	ALAN KEITH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	BEAUMONT, SUNDBERG and ALLSOP JJ
DATE:	20 AUGUST 2002
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. THE COURT: The appellant was at all relevant times a medical practitioner within the meaning of s 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (“the Act”). The respondent was the Determining Officer under s 106Q of the Act. On 14 August 1997 the Health Insurance Commission referred the conduct of the appellant to the Director of Professional Services Review under s 86 of the Act. On 12 February 1999 the Director established a Professional Services Committee under s 93 to consider whether the appellant had engaged in inappropriate practice as that expression is defined in s 82 of the Act. The Committee held hearings on 8 April and 18 May 1999. The appellant failed to provide responsive answers to questions. Neither she nor her family company, which asserted ownership of her medical records, complied with notices to produce them. As a result, on 19 May 1999 the Director disqualified the appellant from access to Medicare rebates and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme pursuant to s 105(3). The appellant successfully appealed against the disqualification to this Court: Hill v Holmes [1999] FCA 760.

2. On 21 September 1999 the Committee held a further hearing, and on 24 February 2000 provided a draft report to the appellant for comment.  The appellant responded in writing on 20 March 2000 and again on 23 March 2000.  The Committee made a final report on 13 April 2000, finding that the appellant had engaged in inappropriate practice.  On 15 November 2000 the Determining Officer made a draft determination and sent it to the appellant for response.  The appellant made submissions to the Determining Officer on 28 November 2000.  The Determining Officer made a final determination on 5 January 2001, directing that the appellant be reprimanded and counselled, and that she be fully disqualified from Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for a period of 18 months.  On…