Professional Services Review Annual Report 2004–05

Previous | Next

2. Report on performance

Federal Court and Full Federal Court cases

Decisions handed down

Full copies of Federal and Full Federal Court decisions are available on the PSR web site at www.psr.gov.au.

Dr Zelco Oreb, medical practitioner, Newtown NSW

The Commission referred Dr Oreb on 13 December 2001 to determine whether he had engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering services constituting a prescribed pattern. During the referral period of 24 January 2000 to 8 August 2000 inclusive the Commission’s data showed that Dr Oreb had rendered 80 or more professional attendances per day on 33 occasions.

A committee was established and found Dr Oreb had engaged in inappropriate practice in rendering a prescribed pattern of services during the period referred and that no exceptional circumstances existed on any of the 33 days in question. Dr Oreb appealed to the Federal Court on whether exceptional circumstances existed, whether the investigative and adjudicative referrals were invalid on grounds established in the Daniel decisions,6 and whether the ‘prescribed pattern’ provisions constituted ‘civil conscription’ in contravention of the Australian Constitution.

In a preliminary decision on 7 July 2004, Jacobson J rejected orders sought by Dr Oreb7 for discovery of various classes of documents broadly relevant to the decisions made.

His Honour generally considered that discovery was irrelevant or unnecessary where reasons for decisions were given. In a second preliminary decision on 28 October 2004, Jacobson J ordered that the hearing on non-constitutional issues proceed ahead of the constitutional issue (which had been raised by the applicant at a late stage).

On 30 November 2004, Jacobson J rejected the Daniel-based arguments as there was no evidence that, following counselling, the Commission had decided not to refer Dr Oreb to PSR and there was evidence that the possibility of a s.92 agreement had been drawn to Dr Oreb’s attention in correspondence and pamphlets.

Dr Oreb had based his claims of exceptional circumstances on high patient demand, the fact that many were refugees from former Yugoslavia with whom he could communicate because of his ethnicity and language skills, lack of alternative medical services, and his work patterns. The committee rejected these claims as the factors were relatively static and could have been managed to bring attendance rates down to acceptable levels such that proper clinical care could be provided to all patients. There was no evidence Dr Oreb had attempted to do this.

Jacobson J held that the committee had wrongly concluded, after reference to extrinsic material, that exceptional circumstances would ordinarily be intermittent and that it would be ‘difficult to justify’ circumstances of an ongoing nature. His Honour ordered that the matter be remitted to the Director to consider whether a fresh referral should be made to another, differently constituted, committee.

Dr Oreb appealed the decision of Jacobson J concerning the offer of a s.92 agreement and PSR cross appealed on the exceptional circumstances issue. On 10 May 2005 the Full Court heard an appeal by Dr Oreb about the validity of the referrals and a cross-appeal

by the committee on the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’. On 14–15 June 2005, Jacobson J heard argument on the constitutional issue. Decisions have been reserved.

Dr Jerzy Cywinski, General Practitioner, Bonnyrigg/Austral NSW

The Commission referred Dr Cywinski because it was concerned about his high number of total services (16 448), his use of long consultations with procedural items, and his high rate of initiation of pathology and diagnostic imaging.

In examining Dr Cywinski’s MBS item 23 services, the committee found he had engaged in inappropriate practice in 48 per cent of these services. The inappropriate practice included: failure to collect and record an adequate history or make a proper examination, prescribed drugs that were not clinically indicated, prescribed narcotic or codeine compound analgesics without clinical indication and without regard to the potential habituating properties of these drugs, billing Medicare for services not personally rendered by him, and keeping records that were deficient in essential clinical material. The committee made similar findings in relation to Dr Cywinski’s item 36 services. The Determining Authority directed Dr Cywinski to repay $55 327.82
and be fully disqualified for two months and be disqualified for 12 months from all services provided as a vocationally registered general practitioner (concurrent with the full disqualification).

In May 2004, Dr Cywinski appealed to the Federal Court for a review of the determination and penalty imposed by the Determining Authority. Dr Cywinski withdrew his application and on 6 October 2004, the Federal Court dismissed his appeal.

Dr Peter Andrianakis, Medical Practitioner, Yarraville/East Kew Vic.

The Commission referred Dr Andrianakis because of his high level of rendered services. During the review period he provided 17 004 services to 5797 patients. Most of these services (16 204) were standard (item 53) consultations.

The committee examined Dr Andrianakis’s long consultations (item 54), and his home visits (item 59).

The committee found that Dr Andrianakis claimed an item 54 when the presenting problem could and should have been dealt with in less than 25 minutes. Dr Andrianakis was also found not to have taken and recorded sufficient history, not to have made an adequate examination, nor to have formulated an adequate management plan. The committee considered this behaviour would not be acceptable to the general body of medical practitioners.

In relation to his item 59 home visits, the committee found that Dr Andrianakis rendered home visit services when the presenting problem and the patient’s medical condition were such that a home visit was not medically necessary. The committee also found that Dr Andrianakis failed to keep adequate medical records. The Determining Authority directed that, in addition to being reprimanded and counselled by the Director, Dr Andrianakis be fully disqualified for two months from Medicare.

Dr Andrianakis appealed to the Federal Court on the issue of whether the committee and the Determining Authority erred in their decisions in relation to the inadequacy of his patient medical records. Dr Andrianakis discontinued his application before the Federal Court in July 2004 and the final determination came into effect in September 2004.

Dr Donald Hatcher, General Practitioner, Roma Qld

The Commission referred Dr Hatcher on 13 December 2001 to determine whether he had engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering services constituting a prescribed pattern. During the referral period of 1 January 2000 to 6 November 2000 inclusive the Commission’s data showed that Dr Hatcher had rendered 80 or more professional attendances per day on 37 occasions.

A committee was established, a hearing held and a final report, with an adverse outcome, produced. The Determining Authority directed that Dr Hatcher be reprimanded, counselled, repay $67 796.75 and be fully disqualified for four weeks. Dr Hatcher appealed to the Federal Court on the issues of whether exceptional circumstances existed, and the validity of the Investigative Referral and of the Determining Authority’s decisions.

Dr Hatcher based his claims of exceptional circumstances on an ongoing shortage of doctors in Roma and the surrounding rural area, a high number of disadvantaged, unemployed and Aboriginal people, certain periodic factors, his bulk billing policy, and his practice organisation. Although he had reduced his appointments to 70 per day he said he was still legally obliged to see emergency cases above that number. The committee rejected these claims as the factors were relatively static and could have been managed to bring attendance rates down to acceptable levels.

Kiefel J held that the Investigative Referral was valid—unlike the Daniel situation, there were no relevant circumstances the Commission had overlooked and the possibility of exceptional circumstances during the referral period was a matter for the committee to decide. Her Honour also held that the Determining Authority was entitled to require repayment of Medicare benefits for all services on all days with 80 or more attendances where exceptional circumstances did not exist.

Kiefel J further held that exceptional circumstances did not refer to matters within a practitioner’s control and were not subject to a time limit. She said the committee had not considered whether the combination of a need for medical services for disadvantaged, unemployed and Aboriginal people and Dr Hatcher’s willingness to bulk bill all patients amounted to an exceptional circumstance. Her Honour accordingly set aside the determination and ordered that the matter be remitted to the Director to consider whether a fresh referral should be made to another, differently constituted, committee.

The committee has appealed the decision about the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ and the order to refer to a new committee. The appeal was heard on 18 May 2005 before Black CJ Wilcox and Lander JJ. The decision has been reserved.

Dr Rifaat Dimian, Medical Practitioner, Merrylands NSW

The Commission referred Dr Dimian on 17 May 2000 because it was concerned that he may have engaged in inappropriate practice through high daily servicing and a high volume of rendered services (19 870) during the referral period of 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 inclusive. The Director conducted a review and decided a committee should further investigate Dr Dimian’s conduct.

A committee was established, held a hearing and produced a final report with a finding that he had engaged in inappropriate practice, largely because of lack of clinical input into, and poor clinical records of, services.

Dr Dimian appealed to the Federal Court on constitutional grounds, alleged failure to offer a s.92 agreement, and alleged lack of procedural fairness in preparation of the committee report through failure to warn him that his credibility was an issue. The constitutional issues have yet to be decided; Jacobson J found that the s.92 possibility had been adequately brought to Dr Dimian’s notice both by letter and pamphlet; and his Honour held, having regard to the adjudicative referral, the hearing and the draft report, that Dr Dimian was not left in the dark about the possibility his evidence might not be accepted.

Dr Dimian appealed to the Full Federal Court on the s.92 issue. A hearing was held before Black CJ, Wilcox and Lander JJ on 10 May 2005. The decision has been reserved.

Dr Jack Freeman, General Practitioner, North Melbourne Vic.

The Commission referred Dr Freeman for rendering 80 or more attendances per day on 92 occasions during the referral period of slightly less than six months.

Dr Freeman did not contest the Commission’s evidence as to the number of professional attendances. Dr Freeman’s legal representative made submissions to the fact that Dr Freeman would forego his right to lead evidence and argue that exceptional circumstances existed on the 92 days.

The Determining Authority directed Dr Freeman to repay $225 377.50 and be fully disqualified for two years and nine months.

Dr Freeman appealed to the Federal Court on the grounds that the investigative referral was invalid for the same reasons as that in Pradhan v Holmes [2001] FCA 1560 (essentially lack of specificity); that the determination failed to take into account Dr Freeman’s belief that the committee investigation had been resolved on an agreed basis; and that the Commission erroneously believed the Health Insurance Act required it to make an investigative referral once it had identified a prescribed pattern of services, without regard to the merits of the particular case.

On 19 April 2004, North J dismissed the appeal. He held that the referral was distinguishable from Pradhan because it clearly stated the conduct referred. As the determination set out the applicant’s contentions as to the committee’s resolution of the matter, and the process of reasoning adopted by the Determining Authority, it was clear it had had regard to those contentions when coming to its conclusion.

On 10 May 2004, Dr Freeman appealed to the Full Federal Court against the decision of North J. On 22 December 2004, the Full Federal Court rejected all the arguments put by Dr Freeman and dismissed his appeal. The determination took effect in January 2005.

Dr Ashraf Selim, General Practitioner, Punchbowl NSW

The Commission referred Dr Selim on 18 December 2001 because it was concerned he may have engaged in inappropriate practice through a high level of rendered services and high daily servicing during the referral period of 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000 inclusive. The Director conducted a review and decided a committee should further investigate Dr Selim’s conduct.

A committee was established, a hearing held and a final report produced with a finding that he had engaged in inappropriate practice, largely because of poor clinical records and unsatisfactory evidence of clinical input to services. There were also instances of inappropriate prescribing and ordering of tests that were not clinically indicated.

Dr Selim appealed to the Federal Court on the basis that none of the PSR ‘decision making’ bodies considered his services over the whole two years immediately preceding the Investigative Referral, but instead looked at a 12-month period that fell within those two years. He also alleged that the committee did not inform him of its concerns before producing its draft report and that it applied the wrong test, comparing his conduct to an optimal level rather than to a range of conduct that would be considered acceptable.

On 28 October 2004, Jacobson J ordered the constitutional issues be severed for separate hearing.

On 7 February 2005 Jacobson J held there was no error on the Director’s part regarding the possibility of a s.92 agreement. This had been adequately brought to Dr Selim’s notice by letter and pamphlet, and Dr Selim had neither responded nor approached the Director. Other grounds of appeal mentioned in our 2003-04 Annual Report were not pursued. Jacobson J dismissed the appeal on the judicial review ground. Dr Selim has appealed that to the Full Federal Court—no date for hearing has yet been set.

Stone J heard Dr Selim’s challenge on the constitutional issue on 14 June 2005 with a decision reserved.

Dr Il Song Lee, General Practitioner, Eastwood NSW—Case 1

The Commission referred Dr Lee on 3 June 2002 to determine whether he had engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering services constituting a prescribed pattern. During the referral period of 8 January 2001 to 12 October 2001 inclusive the Commission’s data showed Dr Lee had rendered 80 or more professional attendances per day on 37 occasions.

A committee was established, a hearing held and a final report, finding Dr Lee engaged in inappropriate practice, produced. Dr Lee has appealed to the Federal Court on the issues of whether exceptional circumstances existed, the referral decisions were invalid on the same grounds as in Daniel v Kelly, and the ‘prescribed pattern of services’ constitutes civil conscription.

On 28 October 2004, Jacobson J ordered the constitutional issues be severed for separate hearing. This has yet to occur.

On 7 February 2005 Jacobson J held that the Director was not in error regarding the possibility of a s.92 agreement. This had been squarely brought to Dr Lee’s notice by letter and Dr Lee had neither responded nor approached the Director. However, his Honour considered that the committee had wrongly applied the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. He said Dr Lee’s claim was, in substance, that Korean patients demanded a Korean doctor and this was outside his control as there was at most only one other Korean doctor available in the area. Although the committee found there were 30 other doctors in the area, it did not consider, as provided by regulation 11(b), the ethnic characteristics of Korean patients—particularly whether they were prepared and able to see non-Korean speaking doctors. Further, the committee’s perception of a need for patients to integrate within the wider community was an irrelevant consideration. Accordingly, his Honour ordered the committee’s finding set aside and the matter be remitted to the Director to consider whether a fresh referral should be made to another, differently constituted, committee.

An appeal was lodged with the Full Federal Court and heard before Black CJ, Wilcox and Lander JJ on 2 August 2005 with the decision reserved.

Dr Il Song Lee, General Practitioner, Eastwood NSW—Case 2

The Commission referred Dr Lee on 13 December 2001 to determine whether he had engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering services constituting a prescribed pattern. During the referral period of 1 January 2000 to 25 September 2000 inclusive the Commission’s data showed Dr Lee had rendered 80 or more professional attendances per day on 37 occasions.

A committee was established, a hearing held and a final report, finding Dr Lee had engaged in inappropriate practice, produced. Dr Lee appealed to the Federal Court on the issues of whether:

On 27 October 2004, Jacobson J ordered the constitutional issues be severed for separate hearing. This has yet to occur.

On 7 February 2005 Jacobson J held that the Director was not in error regarding the possibility of a s.92 agreement. This had been adequately brought to Dr Lee’s notice by letter and Dr Lee had neither responded nor approached the Director. However, his Honour considered the committee had wrongly applied the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. He said Dr Lee’s claim was, in substance, that Korean patients demanded a Korean doctor and this was outside his control as there was at most only one other Korean doctor available in the area. Although the committee found that other culturally appropriate and accessible services were available for Korean patients, it did not consider, as provided by regulation 11(b), their ethnic characteristics—particularly whether they were prepared and able to see such service providers. Further, the committee’s perception of a need for patients to integrate within the wider community was an irrelevant consideration. Accordingly, his Honour ordered the committee’s finding set aside and the matter be remitted to the Director to consider whether a fresh referral should be made to another, differently constituted, committee.

An appeal was lodged with the Full Federal Court and heard before Black CJ, Wilcox and Lander JJ on 2 August 2005 with the decision reserved.

Dr Sou Kao Ly, General Practitioner, Cabramatta NSW

The Commission referred Dr Ly on 13 December 2001 to determine whether he had engaged in inappropriate practice in connection with rendering services constituting a prescribed pattern. During the referral period of 1 January 2000 to 9 April 2000 inclusive the Commission’s data showed that Dr Ly had rendered 80 or more professional attendances per day on 28 occasions.

A committee was established, a hearing held and a final report, finding Dr Ly had engaged in inappropriate practice and that no exceptional circumstances existed on any of the 28 days, produced. The Determining Authority made a determination that Dr Ly be reprimanded, counselled, repay $58 334.45 to Medicare, and be fully disqualified from Medicare for two months and partially for six months.

Dr Ly appealed to the Federal Court on the issues of whether:

As part of the Federal Court process, it was recognised there were certain facts that put this matter directly on a par with Kelly v Daniel. Consequently, on 18 October 2004, consent orders were made to declare void and set aside the investigative referral, the adjudicative referral, the committee’s report and the final determination.

Dr Peter Thomas Tisdall, General Practitioner, Kyabram Vic.

The Commission requested a review of Dr Tisdall’s practice because it believed he had engaged in inappropriate practice by rendering a prescribed pattern of services during the period 5 January 2000 to 21 August 2000. The committee found Dr Tisdall had rendered 80 or more services on 35 days and that no exceptional circumstances existed on any of the days. This was a reduction in the number of days from 66 days because Dr Tisdall was able to demonstrate that he did not provide some of the services from the nominated addresses in the request. Dr Tisdall appealed to the Federal Court.

On 8 April 2005, Gray J dismissed the appeal. Although it appeared that Dr Tisdall had rendered 80 or more services on 66 days in that period, some of the services were for MBS items rendered away from his surgery. Further, there was evidence that other services claimed under his surgery provider number had in fact been rendered to outpatients at the local hospital. Gray J held that, because the referrals specified services rendered at his surgery, services rendered elsewhere could not be counted even when the Commission had no way of knowing where they were rendered. Nevertheless the committee had validly found, after allowing for such services, there was a residue of 35 days each with 80 or more services rendered.

Gray J also adopted the reasoning in Crowley, Oreb, Dimian, Selim, and Lee v Kelly in rejecting Dr Tisdall’s assertions that the Acting Director denied him procedural fairness by failing to inform him that an ‘agreement pursuant to s.92 would not be possible unless the applicant requested such an agreement and was prepared to admit to having engaged in inappropriate practice. His Honour noted that Dr Tisdall knew a s.92 agreement was an option and had legal advice at all times. There was no obligation on the Acting Director to initiate discussions.

When it came to interpreting regulation 11b8 (what constitutes an exceptional circumstance), Gray J took a completely different approach to that of Kiefel J in Hatcher and Jacobson J in Oreb (and later in the two Lee cases). Justice Gray viewed both their approaches, although slightly different in each decision, in considering exceptional circumstances as ‘fundamentally wrong’.

Dr Tisdall has appealed to the Full Federal Court and no date has yet been set for hearing.

Dr Anthony Joseph, Medical Practitioner, Lithgow NSW

In August 2000, the Commission requested the Director review Dr Joseph for his rendering of item 53 (standard surgery consultation—5221) and item 59 services (standard home visit—11 802). Dr Joseph provided 17 660 services to 1846 patients with a Medicare benefit of $417 777.10. On 21 January 2004, the committee found Dr Joseph had engaged in inappropriate practice during the referral period 1 January to 31 December 1999 in relation to 70 per cent of the item 53 services and 86 per cent of the item 59 services. The committee found Dr Joseph had, in relation to the item 53 services:

In relation to the item 59 services, the committee found Dr Joseph, in addition to the findings on item 53 services, had:

Dr Joseph told the committee he did not keep a record of any home visits prior to mid 1999 because he ‘understood that it didn’t come in legally to keep records at that stage’ and that ‘I just didn’t keep a record because I didn’t—
I would not have had time to write all the
home visits down myself’.

The committee formed the view that Dr Joseph had caused, was causing or was likely to cause a threat to the life or health of patients and took steps to refer him to the relevant state medical board. The committee established, among other concerns, that Dr Joseph prescribed medication to two patients without seeing them and he posted prescriptions to the patients in response to letters requesting the particular drugs.

On 9 August 2004, the Determining Authority directed Dr Joseph be reprimanded, counselled, disqualified from Medicare for three years and repay Medicare benefits of $267 999.47

On 3 September 2004 Dr Joseph applied to the Federal Court for review on grounds including the sampling procedure, failure to take into account relevant considerations, and failure to hold a hearing after legislation changes. Branson J heard the application on 30–31 May 2005. On 29 July 2005, Dr Joseph’s application was dismissed in its entirety and the determination came into effect shortly after.

Dr Constantinos Perkoulidis, Medical Practitioner, Brunswick Vic.

Dr Perkoulidis was reviewed by request from the Commission because of the high proportion of his long surgery consultations and his long and prolonged home visits compared to all other active medical practitioners in Australia. Dr Perkoulidis’ rendering of long consultations (item 54) was above the 95th percentile, his long home visits (item 60) was above the 99th percentile, and his prolonged home visits (item 65) was above the 95th percentile. The Director conducted a review and decided a committee should further investigate Dr Perkoulidis’ conduct.

The committee found that Dr Perkoulidis provided long consultations when the patient’s problems could have been adequately addressed in shorter consultations. Examples of these straightforward problems included an influenza vaccination, rhinitis, and otitis media.

Dr Perkoulidis’ medical records were of very poor quality; medical summaries were not filled in or kept up-to-date and the progress notes were brief and missing aspects of essential information. There were many loose-leaf pages of medical records that did not have any identification to indicate to whom the record belonged. Dr Perkoulidis’ handwriting was difficult to read.

Dr Perkoulidis said that approximately 40 per cent of the patients to whom he rendered home visits asked that he not record any information about the visit. Coincidently, the majority of these patients were related to him. The committee found this conduct would be unacceptable to the general body of medical practitioners. The committee found that 29 out of 30 home visits examined were unacceptable.

The Determining Authority directed that Dr Perkoulidis be reprimanded, counselled, repay $88 718.67 of Medicare benefits and be fully disqualified for two months.

Dr Perkoulidis applied for Federal Court review of whether the penalties were appropriate and adequate reasons were provided. Before hearing, the matter was settled. Dr Perkoulidis agreed to the determination and also agreed to pay the respondent’s costs of $25 000, both by 24 equal monthly instalments. The determination came into effect on 1 April 2005.

Dr Chris Siamidis, Medical Practitioner, North Fitzroy Vic.

The Commission requested a review of Dr Siamidis practice on 2 June 2000 because it was concerned he may have engaged in inappropriate practice through rendering a high volume of home visits (6748 to 863 patients) and services per patient, both of which were above the 99th percentile when compared to all active medical practitioners in Australia, during the referral period of 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999. The Director conducted a review and decided a committee should further investigate Dr Siamidis’ conduct.

Dr Siamidis told the committee he had a unique practice, whereby he attended patients at their home rather than in a surgery. Dr Siamidis also told the committee he did not keep day-to-day medical records when visiting patients. He told the committee he made rough notes on the back of Medicare forms and re-wrote these afterwards. There was no evidence to support his contention. There was no evidence to suggest that Dr Siamidis liaised with other general practitioners about patient care.

The committee considered that, to assess a patient’s progress, a medical practitioner would need to make a written record of:

Dr Siamidis failed to record any of this information.

The Determining Authority viewed Dr Siamidis’ inappropriate practice as extreme and directed him to be reprimanded, counselled, repay $75 000 in Medicare benefits and be fully disqualified for 12 months.

Dr Siamidis appealed to the Federal Court on the basis of whether the committee and the Determining Authority had erred in their decisions in relation to the inadequacy of the patient records he provided to the Director. The application was subsequently dismissed by consent on 8 November 2004, with Dr Siamidis being ordered to pay the respondents’ costs ($53 788) as assessed by the Court.

Other appeals lodged and under consideration by the courts

Dr Boguslaw Stanislaw Bartos, General Practitioner, Green Valley NSW

PSR 290, Federal Court N1341 of 2002,
hearing before Stone J on 14 June 2005,
—decision reserved.

Dr Lynette Maree Bellamy, Medical Practitioner, Edgecliff NSW

PSR 345, Federal Court NSD897 of 2005,
no hearing date set.

Dr Ameen Ahmed Bham, Medical Practitioner, Rockingham WA

PSR 187, Federal Court WAD23-2005,
no hearing date set.

Dr Jane Carrick, Medical Practitioner, Auburn NSW

PSR 352, Federal Court NSD322 of 2005,
no hearing date set.

Dr Paul David Crowley, General Practitioner, Lowood Qld

PSR 366, Federal Court V273 of 2003,
no hearing date set.

Dr Paul David Crowley, General Practitioner, Lowood Qld

PSR 296, Federal Court V259 of 2002,
no hearing date set.

Dr Hien Thahn Do, General Practitioner, Merrylands NSW

PSR 293, Federal Court N1321 of 2002,
hearing before Jacobson J on 14 June 2005 on constitutional issues—decision reserved.

Dr Hugo Huu Hiep Ho, General Practitioner, Merrylands NSW

PSR 295, Federal Court N1320 of 2002,
no hearing date set.

Dr George Maragoudakis, General Practitioner, Parkdale Vic.

PSR 323, Federal Court V182 of 2003,
hearing before Weinberg J on 18 July 2005
—decision reserved.

Dr John William Mathews, General Practitioner, Campbelltown NSW

PSR 223, Federal Court N1584/2004,
hearing before Edmonds J on 22 August 2005 adjourned to 14 September 2005. Edmonds J refused Dr Mathews discovery on 2 August 2005.

Dr Malcolm Stuart Nyst, General Practitioner, East Brisbane Qld

PSR 353, Federal Court Qld 136 of 2005,
no hearing date set.

Dr Lam Quoc Phan, General Practitioner, Cabramatta NSW

PSR 190, Federal Court N1818 of 2004,
no hearing date set.

Dr John Warren Piesse, General Practitioner, Kew Vic.

PSR 308, V870 of 2002 and V1161 of 2004,
no hearing date set.

Dr Charles Rupert Russell-Smith, General Practitioner, Kwinana WA

PSR 291, Federal Court W7 of 2003,
no hearing date set.

Dr Charles Rupert Russell-Smith, General Practitioner, Kwinana WA

PSR 369, Federal Court W73 of 2005,
no hearing date set.

Dr Warren John Saint, General Practitioner, Bassendean WA

PSR 204, Federal Court W153 of 2004,
no hearing date set for substantive issue. French J refused Dr Saint discovery on 22 August 2005.

Dr Peter Thomas Tisdall, General Practitioner, Kyabram Vic.

PSR 375, Federal Court V1115 of 2004,
no hearing date set.

Dr Chan Kan Kenneth Wong, General Practitioner, Merrylands and Parramatta NSW

PSR 339, Federal Court N141 of 2004,
no hearing date set.

6 Which concerned relevant considerations in making referrals and the obligations of the Director regarding agreements under s.92 of the Act—see summaries in the 2003–04 PSR Annual Report.
7 His Honour’s decision also refused discovery orders sought by other applicants—Drs Bartos, Do, Ho and Ly.

Previous | Next