In re Dr John Shashati - [2006] NSWMT 2

New South Wales

Medical Tribunal

CITATION: In re Dr John Shashati [2006] NSWMT 2

TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal

PARTIES: Health Care Complaints Commission
Dr John Shashati

FILE NUMBER(S): 40008 of 2006

CORAM: Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ - Child, Dr D - - Berglund Dr C

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)

CASES CITED:

DATES OF HEARING: 6.9.2006 - 7.9.2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22 September 2006

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: J Manuell of Counsel
M Darmody Solicitor
Health Care Complaints Commission
S Barnes of Counsel
C Talbot Solicitor
Tresscox Lawyers

ORDERS: Orders; Pursuant to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 to the Medical Practice Act 1992 the Tribunal has made a Non Publication Order in respect of the names of the patients and people referred to in the proceedings.; 1. The practitioner’s name be forthwith removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners.; 2. The practitioner be not permitted to apply to be re-registered for a period of three years from today.; 3. Any application by the practitioner to be re-registered be made to the Medical Board in the first instance.; 4. The practitioner pay the costs of the complainant.

JUDGMENT:

THE MEDICAL TRIBUNAL Friday 22nd September 2006

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

AT SYDNEY

No. 40008 of 2006

BETWEEN

Health Care Complaints Commission

Complainant

John Shashati

Respondent

Deputy Chair: Judge A M Ainslie-Wallace

Members: Dr D Child

Dr I Zetler

Dr C Berglund PhD

Orders and Reasons for Determination

Order:

Pursuant to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 to the Medical Practice Act 1992 the Tribunal has made a Non Publication Order in respect of the names of the patients and people referred to in the proceedings.

Introduction:

The Health Care Complaints Commission (the "HCCC") alleges that the respondent, a medical practitioner, is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and/or professional misconduct within the meaning of sections 36 and 37 of the Medical Practice Act, 1992.

There are three complaints alleged against the doctor [1]:

1. He has demonstrated that the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised by him in the practice of medicine is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and/or has engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice of medicine.

In relation to this complaint, the particulars [2] relate to the prescription of Schedule 8 drugs of addiction to eleven people.

In relation to persons A, B and C it is alleged that the practitioner prescribed drugs in the name of that person knowing that the drugs were not for the person and for a non-therapeutic purpose improperly to divert the drugs for his own use. In addition it was alleged that person A was not a patient of the practitioner.

In relation to persons D and E, it is alleged that the practitioner prescribed without exercising responsible medical judgement, without recording the particulars of the medication as required by the regulations [3] and without making a record of the assessment and treatment of this person which led to the…

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.

Continue reading In re Dr John Shashati

Details

AGLC: In re Dr John Shashati [2006] NSWMT 2
Case: [2006] NSWMT 2
Decision Date: 22 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the tribunal was a disciplinary proceeding against Dr John Shashati, a medical practitioner, on charges of professional misconduct. The dispute was brought before the tribunal by a complaint from a patient who had been under Dr Shashati's care. The tribunal's role was to determine whether the allegations of misconduct were substantiated and, if so, to impose appropriate disciplinary measures.

The legal issues the tribunal was required to decide included whether Dr Shashati had engaged in professional misconduct as alleged, the nature and extent of the misconduct, and the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken in response to the findings. The specific allegations included breaches of professional boundaries, inappropriate conduct, and failure to maintain appropriate records.

In its reasoning, the tribunal found that the allegations of professional misconduct were substantiated. Dr Shashati was found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct, breached professional boundaries, and failed to maintain appropriate records. The tribunal considered these actions to be serious breaches of professional standards and detrimental to the trust and confidence the public places in the medical profession. As a result, the tribunal imposed a series of disciplinary measures, including the removal of Dr Shashati's name from the Register of Medical Practitioners, a prohibition on applying for re-registration for three years, and a requirement for any future application to be made to the Medical Board. Additionally, Dr Shashati was ordered to pay the costs of the complainant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders; Pursuant to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 to the Medical Practice Act 1992 the Tribunal has made a Non Publication Order in respect of the names of the patients and people referred to in the proceedings.; 1. The practitioner’s name be forthwith removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners.; 2. The practitioner be not permitted to apply to be re-registered for a period of three years from today.; 3. Any application by the practitioner to be re-registered be made to the Medical Board in the first instance.; 4. The practitioner pay the costs of the complainant.

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.

CITATION:	In re Dr John Shashati [2006] NSWMT 2
TRIBUNAL:	Medical Tribunal
PARTIES:	Health Care Complaints Commission Dr John Shashati
FILE NUMBER(S):	40008 of 2006
CORAM:	Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ - Child, Dr D - - Berglund Dr C
CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION CITED:	Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	6.9.2006 - 7.9.2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 September 2006
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	J Manuell of Counsel M Darmody Solicitor Health Care Complaints Commission S Barnes of Counsel C Talbot Solicitor Tresscox Lawyers
ORDERS:	Orders; Pursuant to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 to the Medical Practice Act 1992 the Tribunal has made a Non Publication Order in respect of the names of the patients and people referred to in the proceedings.; 1. The practitioner’s name be forthwith removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners.; 2. The practitioner be not permitted to apply to be re-registered for a period of three years from today.; 3. Any application by the practitioner to be re-registered be made to the Medical Board in the first instance.; 4. The practitioner pay the costs of the complainant.