Medical Board of Australia - Tribunal reprimands doctor for professional misconduct
Look up a health practitioner


Check if your health practitioner is qualified, registered and their current registration status

Tribunal reprimands doctor for professional misconduct

23 Jun 2016

A doctor has been reprimanded and ordered to carry out further education and mentoring, for engaging in professional misconduct.

The Medical Board of Australia (the Board) referred Dr Nadhum Shimmari to the Western Australian State administrative Tribunal (the tribunal), after it received a notification in November 2014 alleging Dr Shimmari had engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a male patient.

In a step to keep the public safe, the Board took immediate action, under section 156(1)(a) of the National Law , and imposed conditions on Dr Shimmari’s registration restricting him from consulting with, or treating, any male patients without a chaperone present.

The Tribunal heard Dr Shimmari admitted that he had behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, including by failing to obtain, or to take reasonable steps to obtain, a patient’s informed consent before conducting an intimate assessment and examination.

The patient initially consulted Dr Shimmari after suffering a workplace injury, and it was during an examination of the patient’s neck, shoulders, arms and back that Dr Shimmari breached professional boundaries when, without adequate clinical reason, he performed an intimate examination of the patient.

At the time of the conduct Dr Shimmari practised as a general practitioner at Sonic Health Plus and Gosnells Medical Clinic, both in Western Australia.

On 13 May 2016, the Tribunal reprimanded Dr Shimmari and ordered that he carry out further education in relation to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted illnesses (STIs) and engage in mentoring sessions on how to obtain informed consent, the diagnosis and treatment of STIs, communication across cultures and record-keeping.

Dr Shimmari was also ordered to pay $9,000 in costs.

The full decision can be viewed on the Tribunal's website.

Page reviewed 23/06/2016