Medical Board of Australia v Dhaimat

The Medical Board of Australia sought to have the registration of Dr Ammar Dhaimat cancelled on the basis of professional misconduct. The Board alleged that Dr Dhaimat had engaged in inappropriate conduct with two female patients, including inappropriate comments, touching and disclosure of confidential information. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the alleged conduct constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what orders should be made. The Tribunal was also required to address procedural issues including the application for substituted service and non-publication orders.

The Tribunal concluded that Dr Dhaimat’s conduct did constitute professional misconduct. The Tribunal found that Dr Dhaimat had engaged in inappropriate conduct with the two female patients, and that this conduct was both individually and collectively so far short of the standard of practice reasonably expected of a practitioner of his level of training and experience as to amount to professional misconduct. The Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Dhaimat’s misbehaviour was not an isolated occurrence and that he had engaged in similar conduct in the past. The Tribunal found that the continued practice of Dr Dhaimat posed such a risk to the public that the only appropriate orders to make were those cancelling Dr Dhaimat’s registration as a health practitioner.

The Tribunal also considered the application for substituted service and non-publication orders. The Board had made extensive efforts to locate Dr Dhaimat in order to serve him with the application for disciplinary action, but had been unsuccessful. The Tribunal was satisfied that substituted service by public advertisement was appropriate. The Board had also sought non-publication orders in relation to patient details, and the Tribunal was satisfied that these orders should be made to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the patients’ personal health information.

The Tribunal cancelled Dr Dhaimat’s registration as a medical practitioner and made orders that certain information relating to the proceedings be kept confidential. The Tribunal was satisfied that substituted service by public advertisement was appropriate and that non-publication orders should be made to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the patients’ personal health information.