Charge
On 8 June 2020, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) against Mr Yan Shi (also known as Kevin Yan Shi Shiel), registered physiotherapist of Auckland (the Physiotherapist).
The charge was laid under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCA Act). The charge alleged that the Physiotherapist had been convicted of forgery and dishonestly using a document, which reflected adversely on his fitness to practise.
The charge included three particulars;
- Whether the convictions were entered against the Physiotherapist
- Whether those convictions qualified to be considered
- Whether the convictions reflected adversely on the Physiotherapist’s fitness to practise.
Background
The Physiotherapist holds a bachelor of Physiotherapy from the University of Otago and has been registered with the Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand since 18 December 2007.
The Physiotherapist submitted documents in support of bank loan applications. The documents had been forged by the Physiotherapist and were false. One loan application was declined by the relevant bank but the other two were approved, advancing funds totalling $1,508,400.
Charges were laid against the Physiotherapist in the Auckland District Court. On 18 April 2018 the Physiotherapist was convicted of 3 charges of forgery and 3 of dishonestly using a document. The Physiotherapist was sentenced to 11 months home detention during which the Physiotherapist was permitted to practise at one of his clinics.
It was submitted by the PCC that the convictions qualified for consideration of the Tribunal under the HPCA Act and that the convictions reflected adversely on the Physiotherapist’s fitness to practise.
Finding
The hearing proceeded via audio-visual link on an agreed summary of facts. The Physiotherapist accepted that the conviction did reflect adversely on his fitness to practise.
The Tribunal found that the first particular of whether the convictions were entered against the Physiotherapist were uncontested and proven.
The second particular was proven, as the convictions did qualify to be considered. The Physiotherapist’s convictions carried maximum penalties of 10 years and 7 years respectively. The requirement for this provision is that the conviction be for any offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 months or longer.
The third particular was also established. The convictions did reflect adversely on the Physiotherapist’s fitness to practise.
Penalty
The Tribunal:
- Suspended the Physiotherapist for nine months;
- Censured the Physiotherapist;
- Imposed conditions upon the Physiotherapist after he recommences practice.
The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.
Appeal
The practitioner has appealed to the High Court against the Tribunal’s penalty decision but not the costs decision. The PCC has filed a cross appeal with the High Court against the Tribunal’s decision on costs. The High Court has dmissed both appeals. Shi v PCC [2021] NZHC 1550.