Medical Board of Australia v Hocking; Hocking v Medical Board of Australia

This case concerns two separate complaints against a medical practitioner, heard together by the Health, Professional and Ethics Tribunal of the Medical Board of Australia. The practitioner was accused of unsatisfactory professional performance and misconduct in two separate cases involving children with hip dysplasia. The first case, OR 13/48, involved a child (Patient B) who underwent hip arthroscopy, during which the practitioner performed a debridement of the acetabular rim, which was contrary to the patient's medical condition, and failed to disclose a restriction on their registration. The second case, OR 14/31, involved another child (Patient A) who was treated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) without the practitioner referring the patient to another surgeon or obtaining informed consent. The practitioner was also accused of making an incorrect statement to the patient's parents about the success of PRP treatment in another child.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the practitioner's conduct in both cases constituted unsatisfactory professional performance, unsatisfactory professional conduct, or professional misconduct, and if so, what conditions should be imposed on the practitioner's registration. The Tribunal found that the practitioner's conduct in both cases constituted unsatisfactory professional performance and misconduct, and imposed conditions on their registration, including mandatory supervision and a requirement to undertake a course on obtaining informed consent. The practitioner appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which found that the Tribunal had erred in law and set aside the decision, substituting its own decision.

The Tribunal's reasoning was that the practitioner's conduct in both cases fell short of the standard expected of a registered medical practitioner. In the first case, the Tribunal found that the practitioner's decision to perform a debridement of the acetabular rim during hip arthroscopy was contrary to the patient's medical condition and constituted unsatisfactory professional performance. The Tribunal also found that the practitioner's failure to disclose a restriction on their registration constituted unprofessional conduct. In the second case, the Tribunal found that the practitioner's failure to refer Patient A to another surgeon and obtain informed consent constituted unsatisfactory professional performance. However, the Tribunal found no case to answer in relation to the injection of PRP into Patient A's hip joint and the misrepresentation made to Patient A's parents about the success of PRP treatment in another child.

The final orders of the Tribunal were to impose conditions on the practitioner's registration, including mandatory supervision and a requirement to undertake a course on obtaining informed consent. The practitioner appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which found that the Tribunal had erred in law and set aside the decision, substituting its own decision. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence and had erred in law in imposing certain conditions on the practitioner's registration. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside the Tribunal's decision and imposed its own conditions on the practitioner's registration, including a requirement to undertake a course on obtaining informed consent and a requirement to obtain informed consent from patients before administering PRP treatment.