Register
Professional Misconduct

Wadie Farid Wadie Baz Haddad


Address: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Sex: Male
Occupation: Doctor
Date: 1 June 2006


Details



Dr Wadie Farid Wadie Baz Haddad was reprimanded on 1 June 2006 by a Medical Tribunal.


The HCCC submitted several complaints against Dr. Wadie Farid Wadie Baz Haddad.


COMPLAINT ONE


The HCCC suggested that Dr. Wadie Farid Wadie Baz Haddad was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and/or professional misconduct within the meaning of sections 36 and 37 of the Act in that he:


Has demonstrated a lack of adequate judgment or care in the practice of medicine, and/or engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice of medicine.


Particulars of Complaint One


1. At all relevant times the practitioner worked as a general practitioner.


On 22 December 2002 the practitioner treated a male patient, Patient A, at the After Hours GP Service Macarthur Division of General Practice located at Campbelltown Hospital.


During the consultation with Patient A, the practitioner:


(a) Inappropriately removed Patient A’s shorts and underwear forcibly and/or


(b) Failed to seek and obtain Patient A’s consent to perform an examination of Patient A’s genitals and/or


(c) Failed to explain to Patient A the reasons for examining his genitals, prior to conducting the examination and/or


(d) Inappropriately physically examined Patient A’s genitals and/or:


(i) without proper and sufficient clinical indications and/or


(ii) for the purpose of sexual gratification.


(e) Failed to wear gloves when he was examining Patient A’s genitals.


2. On 30 July 1998, the Medical Tribunal heard the practitioner’s application for re-registration as a medical practitioner, and allowed the application, subject to a condition that the practitioner was “To attend a Board nominated psychiatrist for review at 6 monthly intervals for two years, and then at a frequency determined by the Board nominated psychiatrist. Such psychiatrist is to be provided with a copy of the Tribunal’s Reasons for Determination.”


(a) The practitioner knew, or ought to have known, that the role of the Board-nominated psychiatrist was to monitor the practitioner’s return to practice, and in particular the appropriateness of the practitioner’s dealings with patients.


(b) On or about 1 March 1999, the practitioner provided a false personal history to Dr Peter Morse, the psychiatrist nominated by the Medical Board, when he reported that he was not sexually attracted to male persons:


(i) In circumstances in which the practitioner knew, or ought to have known, that his sexual orientation was a matter which was relevant to Dr Morse’s monitoring and assessment of him; and


(ii) For the purpose of misleading Dr Morse and/or the Medical Board.


(c) On each occasion following the initial meeting with Dr Morse, the practitioner continued to provide false and misleading information to Dr Morse in relation to his sexual orientation.


(d) On 20 February 2004 the practitioner provided a false personal history to Dr Stephen Allnutt, the Medical Board nominated psychiatrist, when he reported that he was not sexually attracted to male persons:


i. In circumstances in which the practitioner knew, or ought to have known, that his sexual orientation was a matter which was relevant to Dr Allnutt’s monitoring and assessment of him; and


ii. For the purpose of misleading Dr Allnutt and/or the Medical Board.


COMPLAINT TWO


The practitioner has been made the subject of a criminal finding for an offence in New South Wales.


1. On 26 August 2004 in the Local Court Downing Centre Sydney, the practitioner was found guilty of the offence of Prohibited person apply for child related employment, contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998.


COMPLAINT THREE


The practitioner is not of good character.


1. (a) On 25 August 1989 the practitioner indecently assaulted a patient at his rooms at Campbelltown.


(b) On 12 February 1993 the practitioner was made the subject of a criminal finding on a charge that he assaulted the patient with act of indecency on 25 August 1989.


(c) On 12 October 1994, the Medical Tribunal found that the practitioner had assaulted the patient on 25 August 1989, and that he was guilty of professional misconduct.


On 22 December 2002 the practitioner treated a male patient, Patient A, at the After Hours GP Service Macarthur Division of General Practice located at Campbelltown Hospital.


During the consultation with Patient A, the practitioner:


(a) Inappropriately removed Patient A’s shorts and underwear forcibly and/or


(b) Failed to seek and obtain Patient A’s consent to perform an examination of Patient A’s genitals and/or


(c) Failed to explain to Patient A the reasons for examining his genitals, prior to conducting the examination and/or


(d) Inappropriately physically examined Patient A’s genitals and/or:


(i) without proper and sufficient clinical indications and/or


(ii) for the purpose of sexual gratification.


(e) Failed to wear gloves when he was examining Patient A’s genitals.


3. On 30 July 1998, the Medical Tribunal heard the practitioner’s application for re-registration as a medical practitioner, and allowed the application, subject to a condition that the practitioner was “To attend a Board nominated psychiatrist for review at 6 monthly intervals for two years, and then at a frequency determined by the Board nominated psychiatrist. Such psychiatrist is to be provided with a copy of the Tribunal’s Reasons for Determination.”


(a) The practitioner knew, or ought to have known, that the role of the Board-nominated psychiatrist was to monitor the practitioner’s return to practice, and in particular the appropriateness of the practitioner’s dealings with patients.


(b) On or about 1 March 1999, the practitioner provided a false personal history to Dr Peter Morse, the psychiatrist nominated by the Medical Board, when he reported that he was not sexually attracted to male persons:


(i) In circumstances in which the practitioner knew, or ought to have known, that his sexual orientation was a matter which was relevant to Dr Morse’s monitoring and assessment of him;


(ii) For the purpose of misleading Dr Morse and/or the Medical Board.


(c) On each occasion following the initial meeting with Dr Morse, the practitioner continued to provide false and misleading information to Dr Morse in relation to his sexual orientation.


(d) On 20 February 2004 the practitioner provided a false personal history to Dr Stephen Allnutt, the Medical Board nominated psychiatrist, when he reported that he was not sexually attracted to male persons:


(i) In circumstances in which the practitioner knew, or ought to have known, that his sexual orientation was a matter which was relevant to Dr Allnutt’s monitoring and assessment of him; and


(ii) For the purpose of misleading Dr Allnutt and/or the Medical Board.


4. On 7 May 2002, on the “Prohibited Person Declaration” form for the purposes of disclosure under the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 the practitioner falsely declared that he did not have any relevant convictions.


5. On 26 August 2004 in the Local Court Downing Centre Sydney, the practitioner was found guilty of the offence of Prohibited person apply for child related employment, contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998.”


The Tribunal finds that:


(a) the complaint that Mr Haddad engaged in improper conduct relating to the practise of medicine is established;


(b) the complaint that Mr Haddad has been convicted of the offence of applying whilst a prohibited person for child-related employment in breach of s 6(1)(a) of the Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 is established;


(c) the complaint that he is not of good character is established.


(2) The Tribunal finds the practitioner guilty of professional misconduct.


The Tribunal orders:


(a) that Mr Haddad not be permitted to apply to be re-registered for a period of five (5) years;


(b) that Mr Haddad pay the costs of the hearing before the Tribunal.