Medical Board of Australia v Woollard [2017] WASCA 64 is a further decision concerning disciplinary action against Dr Woollard. The present matter was an appeal on a question of law touching on abuse of process, prejudice through delay and double jeopardy, against the background of the death of a patient following an angioplasty procedure.

One of the underlying complaints was in respect of inadequate training, in that the doctor performed the procedure in circumstances which did not meet the 2001 Cardiac Society guidelines which specified that competency would require a doctor to participate in at least 200 procedures, with a minimum of 75 procedures as the primary operator. A false representation complaint alleged that the doctor had represented that he had performed at least 75 coronary angioplasty procedures as primary operator and at least 125 as secondary operator.

Following a detailed review of the primary decision and the issues, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the Medical Board. The Court of Appeal overturned the earlier order of the Tribunal by which the complaint against Dr Woollard had been struck out.

 

One thought on “False representation claim and inadequate training claim: Abuse of process / delay

Comments are closed.