Dr Kurt Fischer and Western Psychiatry
illegal behaviour
We introduce the complainant who has strong academic technical background, and the respondent. Dr Kurt Fischer
CONTRAVENTION ONE
Privacy Act 1988
​
The respondent namely Dr Kurt Fischer contravened the Australian Privacy Principle (APP12) by denying a patient access to sensitive information (denying access) therein breaching a duty, moreover, invoking a detriment after access requests from said patient. Referring APP 12.18
​
"APP 12 requires that personal information be given to an individual ‘on request’. APP 12 does not stipulate formal requirements for making a request, or require that a request be made in writing, or require the individual to state that it is an APP 12 request".
​
The respondent subsequently misled the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and gave deliberate omissions and/or insufficient and inaccurate details to said Office in a subsequent investigation.
CONTRAVENTION TWO
Breach of pay/fee contractual arrangements.
Professional Negligence
"The tort of professional negligence is an approximate breach of duty of care, skill and/or diligence."
"A breach of contract occurs when at least one party fails to perform their obligations with respect to that contract".
​
In all instances the appropriate payments were made to the respondent Dr Kurt Fischer to therefore exercise appropriate duty, skill and/or diligence. Unbeknown to his patient, the respondent namely Dr Kurt Fischer, knowingly and with intent, breached said duty and contractual arrangement. Hence, with purposeful and malicious intention, the respondent subsequently made deliberate omissions, and/or provided misleading information and/or omissions to insurance agencies, namely CGU insurance and Work-Cover WA. A subsequent Legal Practice Complaint Committee (LPCC) investigation confirmed that the respondent Dr Kurt Fischer, made additional omissions in the patient's medical record during a paid consultation with his patient's solicitors. The discovery of medical evidence sufficient to substantiate the patient's injury, and previously diagnosed by the respondent, was deliberately removed from the evidence. After removing medical evidence from the patient record and denying his solicitors access, and in the most deranged unreasonable action, the respondent acted with fully targeted purpose, by witness signing the patient's legal documentation and causing unrecoverable distress and detriment to his patient. The respondent was duly aware that the medical evidence withheld, amounted to a causative medico-legal link in the diagnosis history, the information connection here is they are fundamentally the same diagnosis, although emanating from the precise time of injury. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) conducted an intense investigation wherein expert legal opinions reviewed the Privacy law breach and independent Barrister assessed the financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the respondent is responsible, and it is very clear that his deceitful and dishonest follow-up conduct is indicative of treacherous behaviour unbecoming a medical professional. Subsequently Dr Kurt Fischer attempted to defend his conduct by inappropriately and illegally misleading fellow medical professionals with inaccurate and/or incomplete patient history for the purpose of their reassessment in Dr Fischer's primary diagnosis. The logic here is that a differential diagnosis forms a legal defence for the claims against the respondent.
In perhaps the most serious transgression yet mentioned, new evidence retained suggests that the respondent acts with at least one accomplice. I introduce Dr Jeannette Frost of Perth Clinic who during a first meeting denied her connection to the respondent. The communications provided by her office and authored by Dr Jeannette Frost manifest the most profoundly bold approximation of narcissism, namely that our intensive record of investigation and supporting factual evidence is a paranoid preoccupation with the respondent Dr Kurt Fischer. However, the evidence, investigations, reports and various legal opinions, together with the associated conduct are valid and clear.
There is more than one Perth medical professional who we have investigated with HADSCO for instances of differential and unreasonable conduct towards the complainant and who may have a direct connection to the respondent therefore communicate inaccurate facts in their documented reports. Our public service message on this web site and distributed throughout the World Wide Web is for the best interest of any individual who is fragile and seeking support, that these professional persons may medically advise you only for their advantage. However, not necessarily within their professional scope of responsibility and accordingly, the recommendation is to know and be aware that there is a strong possibility of harm by consulting these respondent's, who:
​
"Are professionally responsible and legally accountable for human life, paradoxically, given the evidence are clearly dishonest."
​
"Therefore, with respect to that evidence and by definition of organizational psychopathy
may not have regard for your best personal interest."
​
"Hence, may manipulate persons by way of a superficially charming disposition providing it is for their advantage".
​
"Most importantly, the acknowledgement or assumption of accountability, or regulation is incorrect."
​
CONTRAVENTION THREE
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Sections 5 (1), Direct Disability Discrimination
​
"For the purposes of the Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if, because of the disability, the discriminator treats, or proposes to treat, the aggrieved person less favourably than the discriminator would treat a person without the disability in circumstances that are not materially different".
​
After grievances filed with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) the respondent and an accomplice, again made deliberate omissions and/or provided false factual detail to defend the complaints against them, moreover we submit that the respondent has a history of dishonesty when questioned and officially investigated. Thereafter and during these submissions to AHPRA, and the NHPO, over many years, dozens of communications have been exchanged to said regulatory authority, many in alternate forms, although without appropriate recourse. The most audacious comments from AHPRA and the NHPO is officially denial, that is, they do not acknowledge the awareness of the respondents conduct and report they have never received our complaint. The complainant advises that this denial is a profoundly biased and grossly unsubstantiated nonsense. Moreover, it is noteworthy that in the first instance, any communication from the NHPO is founded in apparent concern, however amount to overwhelming neglect of any action and we submit there was never any intention of assistance. We also submit, that in the first instance their appearance of welfare checking is nothing more than evidence gathering for legal defence.
​
CONTRAVENTION FOUR
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Sections 42 (1) & 42 (2) Victimization
​
"It is an offence for a person to commit an act of victimisation against another person."
​
Sections 42 (2), Victimization
"For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is taken to commit an act of victimisation against another person if the first‑mentioned person subjects, or threatens to subject, the other person to any detriment on the ground that the other person..."
​
For the purpose of the appropriate section 42 (2) of the DDA 1992 and in the absence of action against the medical professional (s) by the regulatory authority moreover given this context of strong factual evidence of legal recourse against the respondents. Then it is reasonable to approximate that said conduct by AHPRA is direct disability discrimination and the conduct relating to this complaint to AHPRA is by definition, victimization by (NHPO). It is my understanding that AHPRA and the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman (NHPO) paradoxically advocate for the respondent (s) with trivial regard for the welfare and/or interest in patients with impairment or disability. There is no requirement for a complaint of victimization to have been submitted only that there is an intention to make said complaint. Furthermore, we request that the matter be dealt with in the appropriate jurisdiction thereafter submitting a request for maximum penalty for said offence. Sections 42 (1) of the DDA 1992 provides a complainant the opportunity to impose a six-month term of imprisonment for said offence.