Medical Board of Queensland v Whittaker (No 2)

[2010] QCAT 359

CITATION: Medical Board of Queensland v Whittaker (No 2) [2010] QCAT 359

PARTIES:	Medical Board of Queensland (Applicant)
v
Donald Bruce WHITTAKER (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:            HPF011-09              

MATTER TYPE: Occupational Regulation matters

HEARING DATE:   On the papers

HEARD AT:   

DECISION OF: Kingham DCJ
Deputy President

DELIVERED ON:   16 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:   Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:  

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The conditions imposed on Dr Whittaker’s registration on 28 April 2010 are recorded in the Register for the period during which they are in force.

CATCHWORDS :  Health Practitioner – Disciplinary proceeding – unsatisfactory professional conduct – where conditions imposed on the respondents registration – whether those conditions should be recorded in the registrar and for what period.
Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 s 242

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. In April this year the Tribunal imposed conditions upon Dr Whittaker’s registration. In making a decision to impose conditions on a practitioner’s registration, the Tribunal must also decide whether details of the conditions must be recorded in the register maintained by the Medical Board for the period for which they are in force.

1. Dr Whittaker opposed the conditions being recorded. He argued that would serve no useful purpose. He submitted the offence was minor, the conditions are directed to a procedure he no longer performs and does not intend to resume performing, and they require him to record matters he is already required to report. Recording those conditions, he argued, would afford the public no additional protection and was unnecessary. Finally he asserted recording the conditions would involve a further punishment for a minor transgression.

1. Dr Whittaker noted there was no request by the Board at the hearing for the conditions to be recorded and that it would be unreasonable to now seek this additional penalty. It is true counsel for the Board did not raise the matter at the hearing.  However, the Tribunal did not, as it was required to do, determine whether or not to record the conditions in the Board’s register. It is not a matter of a further punishment being imposed upon the respondent unfairly. Rather the Tribunal is now completing its function under the Act.

1. The starting point for this exercise is prescribed by the Act. Conditions imposed on a practitioner’s registration must be recorded in the Board’s register unless the Tribunal reasonably believes it is not in the interest of users of the practitioner’s services or the public to know the details. (Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 s242(2))

1. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public, to uphold professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the profession. (s 123) At the hearing there was no contest that a reprimand was an appropriate and public expression of the Tribunal’s disapproval of Dr Whittaker’s conduct. Likewise, I consider it appropriate that other measures taken as a consequence of that conduct are also made public.

1. Recording the conditions may not be required to ensure Dr Whittaker complies with them. Nevertheless, recording them is consonant with the objectives of upholding standards and maintaining public confidence in the profession. To that end a public interest is served by the public in general and other practitioners having ready access to them.

1. I have not been persuaded that it is not in the interests of users of Dr Whittaker’s services or the public to know the details of the conditions. In those circumstances, I must decide that they are recorded in the register.

1. The application by the Board for the conditions to be recorded in its register for the period they are in force is approved.