In Health Care Complaints Commission v Al Hamid [2026] NSWCATOD 41, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) considered serious disciplinary action against a podiatrist, Heassan Al Hamid, who repeatedly ignored regulatory conditions and misled authorities.
The Tribunal ultimately cancelled his registration, imposed a 12-month non-review period, and prohibited him from providing any health services.
Background
The practitioner was first registered in 2019 and later worked as a sole practitioner across multiple clinics. Concerns about his practice emerged following anomalies in applications submitted to EnableNSW for orthotics funding.
A performance assessment later found he was not competent in several critical areas, including:
- Patient assessment and care planning
- Clinical decision-making
- Record keeping
- Infection control
- Duty of care
The assessors concluded that his practice posed a significant risk to the public and recommended strict supervision.
Conditions Imposed
In June 2023, the Podiatry Council of NSW imposed conditions requiring that:
- He must not practise until a supervisor was approved
- He must work under Category A supervision (direct oversight)
- He must comply with ongoing education and reporting obligations
Despite clearly understanding these conditions and formally accepting them, the practitioner failed to comply.
Ongoing Breaches
Rather than ceasing practice, the practitioner continued to treat patients and bill Medicare.
The Tribunal found that he:
- Treated patients on 311 occasions without supervision
- Continued working over a seven-month period in breach of conditions
- Failed to complete required CPD and provide essential documentation
This was not an isolated lapse — it was a sustained pattern of non-compliance.
Misleading the Regulator
A critical factor in the Tribunal’s decision was the practitioner’s dishonesty.
He repeatedly told the Podiatry Council that he was not practising, including:
- During phone calls with monitoring officers
- In written correspondence
- During formal proceedings
These statements were later admitted as being false. The Tribunal rejected claims of “miscommunication”, finding the conditions were clear and the conduct deliberate.
Conduct During Suspension
Even after his registration was suspended in February 2024, the practitioner continued to act inconsistently with regulatory expectations.
He:
- Prepared reports for NDIS patients while suspended
- Appeared on national television presenting himself as a podiatry expert
- Continued to hold himself out as a practising professional
This conduct reinforced concerns about his lack of insight and judgement.
The Legal Findings
NCAT found the practitioner guilty of:
- Unsatisfactory professional conduct (breaching conditions and unethical conduct)
- Professional misconduct (due to the seriousness and repeated nature of the behaviour)
The Tribunal emphasised that:
- Compliance with conditions is fundamental to the regulatory system
- Honesty with regulators is essential
- The protection of public health and safety is the paramount consideration under NSW law
The Outcome
Given the seriousness of the conduct, NCAT ordered:
- Cancellation of registration
- A 12-month non-review period
- A prohibition on providing any health services
- Payment of the Commission’s legal costs
The Tribunal found the practitioner posed a real and ongoing risk to the public, particularly given his repeated breaches and dishonesty.
Why This Case Matters
This decision provides a clear warning to health practitioners across NSW:
- Regulatory conditions must be strictly followed — they are not optional
- Dishonesty will significantly aggravate disciplinary outcomes
- Financial pressure is not a justification for breaching obligations
- Repeated misconduct will almost certainly lead to deregistration
The case also demonstrates that disciplinary action is not only punitive but protective — aimed at maintaining public confidence in the healthcare system.
Key Takeaway
Professional registration carries ongoing obligations. Where a practitioner repeatedly disregards those obligations and misleads regulators, the consequences are severe and often career-ending.
DISCLAIMER
This article reflects the current law at the time of publication. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The actual decisions in each case are summarised for general understanding. For specific legal guidance in relation to your situation, please consult with a qualified legal professional.