Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency - Panel hearing summary 2012.0174
Look up a health practitioner


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

Panel hearing summary 2012.0174

Decision of the Medical Board of Australia

Performance and Professional Standards Panel

Jurisdiction: Victoria

Date of Hearing: 25 October 2012

Date of Decision: 22 November 2012

Classification of Notification:

  • Informed consent - Lack of consent.
  • Clinical care - Other clinical care issue.
  • Infection/hygiene - Breach of infection control procedure or standards.


The patient presented to a cosmetic clinic for a free treatment of a facial filler. It was alleged that the doctor had behaved in a way that constituted unprofessional conduct under s 191(1)(b)(ii) of the National Law in that they:

  • did not obtain informed consent from the patient for a procedure involving the product Voluma, particularly, failed to inform the patient of the product’s potential side effects
  • administered Voluma contrary to the manufacturer’s guidelines
  • administered Voluma with a cannula without taking adequate measures to prevent infection.


The panel found that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations about the practitioner and that the practitioner had no case to answer.

The practitioner’s description of the procedure varied from that of the patient. The panel found no evidence to confirm that the facial filler was administered contrary to the manufacturer’s guidelines. The panel found that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the infection control measures taken during the procedure were inadequate.

While the panel acknowledged a disagreement between the practitioner and the patient about the consent process, it found that the practitioner had obtained signed informed consent. The patient signed a consent form for the product Juvaderm, which listed the known side effects of this product. Voluma was a member of the Juvaderm family.


The panel determined that no further action was to be taken.

Page reviewed 22/04/2014