📜 PETITION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION (HCCC)

Regarding Misconduct, Jurisdictional Overreach, and Breaches of the Law in the Case of Dr My Le Trinh

This petition supports a formal submission already made to the NSW Parliamentary Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission under section 65 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW). It raises systemic concerns about regulatory misconduct and calls for urgent oversight. All facts referred to are drawn from publicly available documents and proceedings.

To: The Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission
Parliament of New South Wales
The members are: Dr Joe McGirr, Tim Crakanthorp, Amanda Cohn, Greg Donnelly, Aileen MacDonald, Michael Kemp, David Saliba

We, the undersigned members of the public, write to express our serious concern about the conduct of the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) and the Medical Council of NSW in their investigation and ongoing prosecution of Dr My Le Trinh, a general practitioner with an unblemished record of 29 years.

Dr Trinh was indefinitely suspended in October 2021 and has now been under suspension for nearly four years. Evidence now available—including correspondence, internal emails, and legal documents—shows that:

• The HCCC used two complaints (Westmead and “John Smith”) to initiate a section 150 hearing, despite both being deficient and unsupported. One came from an unverified source; the other was lodged by an intern who later admitted she did not know why she made the complaint. Neither complaint was accompanied by patient consent, and both were eventually abandoned without disclosure.

• A third complaint (File No. 21/07861) was then retrospectively created by the same panel of the Medical Council that had suspended Dr Trinh. That panel submitted its “Reasons for Suspension” document as a complaint, effectively acting as both decision-maker and complainant—a breach of natural justice and administrative law.

• The Medical Council is not permitted to create a complaint based on a matter it has already adjudicated. This conduct constitutes a jurisdictional error, as confirmed in Bay v AHPRA & Ors [2024] QSC 315, where the Court found that acting as both adjudicator and complainant renders the process invalid.

• Instead of following the legal complaint-handling process, the HCCC proceeded to investigate and prosecute Dr Trinh without ever serving, assessing, or notifying her of the existence of the third complaint (File No. 21/07861). That file was concealed from her for over six months. The HCCC failed to comply with the statutory requirements under sections 16–23 of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 (NSW) — including proper service, assessment, and notice — before taking coercive or disciplinary action.

• Throughout the entire process, the HCCC created the appearance that it was investigating three separate complaints—Westmead, “John Smith,” and the Medical Council complaint—when in fact, from as early as 10 November 2021, it had internally committed to proceeding only on the third complaint (File No. 21/07861). This was never disclosed to Dr Trinh. All correspondence continued to reference the other two complaints, giving a false impression of procedural fairness. This concealment was deliberate and sustained, and it represents a clear demonstration of bad faith by the regulator.

• The HCCC also bypassed the mandatory referral process under section 145D(1) of the National Law, which requires that only a properly assessed complaint can be referred to the Tribunal where suspension or cancellation may be justified. No such assessment occurred in Dr Trinh’s case. Instead, the HCCC prosecuted her directly under section 149C using a complaint that had never been properly created or lawfully served.

• To obtain patient records in the absence of a valid complaint, the HCCC relied on clause 11(1)(k) of the Health Records and Information Privacy Code. This clause is a privacy exception that allows a doctor or clinic to voluntarily disclose records to assist an investigation — but only where a valid complaint exists. It is not a compulsory power, and cannot be used to force disclosure. If the HCCC requires records, it must use its formal legal power under section 21A, which requires an enforceable notice. In this case, there was no lawfully assessed complaint at the time records were obtained, meaning the use of clause 11(1)(k) was misapplied, procedurally improper, and misleading.                         

We therefore respectfully request that the Committee:

1. Conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the HCCC and Medical Council in creating and using File No. 21/07861;

2. Investigate whether the Medical Council unlawfully acted as a complainant under section 150D, and whether this breached the principle of natural justice;

3. Examine the HCCC’s misuse of clause 11(1)(k), including whether it was used to obtain patient records where there was no valid complaint and whether any disclosure was truly voluntary;

4. Assess whether coercive powers under section 34A were exercised without lawful basis;

5. Recommend reforms to prevent unlawful complaint creation, ensure complaint-handling laws are followed, and uphold procedural fairness;

6. Clarify whether the HCCC has legal authority to investigate or prosecute a complaint that was never properly assessed or served under the Act.

7. Request an independent audit of the HCCC’s handling of complaints involving suspended practitioners, to identify any other cases where similar legal failures or concealments may have occurred;

8. Recommend safeguards to prevent internal or retrospective complaints from being used to justify investigation or prosecution unless independently reviewed and lawfully served.

This case highlights systemic concerns about the way health regulators in NSW exercise their powers. If regulators are permitted to prosecute practitioners without following the law, the rights of every health professional in this state are at risk. What has happened to Dr Trinh is a gross injustice and should never be allowed to happen to anyone else. We urge the Committee to act swiftly in the public interest.

Note: This petition does not seek to interfere with the current NCAT proceedings, which are still ongoing, and no final decision has yet been made. It addresses only the misconduct and legal breaches that occurred prior to prosecution.

Dr My Le Trinh    Contact the author of the petition