ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Disciplinary proceedings for “inappropriate practice” brought against medical practitioner - appeal from decision of Professional Services Review Tribunal affirming in part a determination made by the respondent, the Determining Officer, following referral by Health Insurance Commission and decision of the Professional Services Review Committee - natural justice - whether failure by Commission to accord procedural fairness - whether failure by Committee to accord procedural fairness - whether failure by Committee to relate findings of “inappropriate practice” to identified services or to a sample of services - whether failure by Committee to clearly identify what were the findings of “inappropriate practice” made - whether failure by Determining Officer to take relevant considerations into account - whether by giving effect to findings of Committee, determination of Determining Officer necessarily incorporated and adopted flaws affecting report of Committee - function of the Tribunal to review the matter for itself and independently arrive at its own conclusions - whether failure by Tribunal to provide adequate reasons - whether findings of the Tribunal failed for lack of procedural fairness - whether failure by Tribunal to relate findings of “inappropriate practice” to identified services or to a sample of services.
[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 Yung v Adams
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Yung v Adams [1997] FCA 1400
Case
[1997] FCA 1400
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the applicant, Dr Steven Yung, a medical practitioner, sought review of a decision of the Professional Services Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") which affirmed in part a determination of the Determining Officer. The proceedings against Dr Yung were brought under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). The applicant was found to have engaged in "inappropriate practice" in relation to services for which Medicare benefits had been claimed. The Tribunal found that Dr Yung had practised inappropriately in that his professional conduct as presented in the referral and as elicited during the course of the hearing was such that it would not be acceptable to the general body of vocationally registered general practitioners. The Tribunal affirmed the determination of the Determining Officer to the extent that it imposed a disqualification for 6 months but set aside the determination in all other respects.The appeal was limited to a question of law. One such question was whether the principles of natural justice applied. The Court found that the principles of natural justice required that the applicant be given adequate notice of the findings which might be made against him and a fair opportunity to respond. The Court found that the applicant did not receive procedural fairness at the stage of the proceedings before the Committee and that the findings of the Committee failed for lack of procedural fairness. The Tribunal also failed to accord procedural fairness in that it did not ensure that the applicant had a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The Court also found that the Tribunal failed to relate its findings of "inappropriate practice" to identified services or to a sample of services. The Court found that the failure of the Tribunal to accord procedural fairness, and its failure to relate its findings of "inappropriate practice" to identified services or to a sample of services, rendered the decision of the Tribunal flawed. The Court also found that the reasons given by the Tribunal were inadequate.The Court concluded that the decision of the Tribunal should be set aside and that the proceedings should be remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and decided again. The Court ordered that the decision of the Tribunal be set aside and that the proceedings be remitted to the Professional Services Review Tribunal differently constituted to be heard and decided again. The Court also ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the proceedings.