Michael Hodge KC and Stewart Webster KC represented the respondent, instructed by MinterEllison.
The central question in the appeal concerned the validity of a notice issued by the appellant under s 89B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (HI Act) that required the respondent to produce “complete clinical records” in respect of a representative sample of his patients during the period covered by the review (the Notice). The respondent’s failure to comply with the Notice prevented Medicare benefits being paid in respect of services rendered or initiated by the respondent.
The appellant submitted that the primary judge erred in holding that the Notice was not authorised by s 89B of the HI Act and was therefore invalid. The Full Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The documents required by the Notice to be produced, being complete clinical records for identified patients to whom the respondent provided services during the review period, were relevant to the review within the meaning of s 89B(1), properly construed. Further, the form and content of the Notice were sufficient to comply with the requirements of s 89B.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
