WHITENING BY NON DENTISTS

WHITENING BY NON DENTISTS

For those interested in such things, an ongoing case about the appeal of a decision relating to teeth whitening material pursuant to the section 122 of the Australian Consumer Law can be found here.

INSUFFICIENT WARNINGS – PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

In Dental Board of Australia v White (Review and Regulation) [2013] VCAT 1968 (8 November 2013), some issues of clinical records and radiology were raised.

February 4 2014

February 4th, 2014|

About the Author: Brad Wright

Brad Wright - Barrister

2 months ago

When Giles Coren is good, he is absolutely fantastic. This is an example. ... See MoreSee Less

I’m leavin’ it… how McDonald’s got deplorable

www.thetimes.com

In the 1970s you’d find all-American razzle-dazzle and tasty food in the golden arches. Now the chain symbolises US decline

View on Facebook

Brad Wright - Barrister

4 months ago

Had to go to the NY Times to get this news of Dr Warren’s passing. How many people had a better life because of these two. ... See MoreSee Less

J. Robin Warren, Who Proved That Bacteria Cause Ulcers, Dies at 87

www.nytimes.com

He endured skepticism but won a Nobel Prize for his work upending the conventional wisdom that stress, diet or alcohol caused the painful condition.

View on Facebook

Brad Wright - Barrister

4 months ago

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 ?A reprimand is a chastisement for conduct; a formal rebuke. Reprimands issued since the start of the National Scheme are published on the National Registers of Practitioners. It can be imposed in a Tribunal in a prosecution or can be imposed by a Board Panel.The Boards seem to take the view that the reprimand to be effective must be published on the register. This means any person – including health funds- can see the fact that person has been reprimanded.Tribunals and Courts have consistently found that a reprimand is not a trivial penalty and that it had the potential for serious adverse implications to a professional person.The period of the reprimands visibility on the register is often a matter of dispute.Section 226(3) of the National Law gives the Board a discretion to remove the fact of a reprimand from the National Register “if it considers it is no longer necessary or appropriate.” In Health Ombudsman v HNH [2021] QCAT 235 at [36] the Tribunal observedThe Tribunal has no power to make any order as to how long the reprimand of the respondent remains recorded on the register. That is a decision for the Board. However, there is no prohibition on the Tribunal expressing a view on such matter, providing it is clear that the ultimate determination of such matter remains solely a matter for the Board. In other decisions Tribunals have made similar recommendations to that in Medical Board of Australia v YOS [2023] QCAT 164 and Medical Board of Australia v Kyaw [2016] QCAT 34 at [28].𝗣𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡Health Practitioners agreeing to reprimands should be aware that if the matter is before a Tribunal, the Tribunal may not be persuaded that it can set an end of publication date for the reprimand, but may express a recommendation of a lesser period.If the reprimand is imposed by a Council or Board Panel rather than a Tribunal it may be argued that the Board or Tribunal has the power to set an end of publication date and is a matter of policy for the Board or Council. ... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

WHITENING BY NON DENTISTS

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Brad Wright

Related Posts