Facebook Pixel

Dr. Dush Shan (aka Dushyanta Shan)

4 reviews
Unavailable
Unavailable

Ratings for Dr. Dush Shan (aka Dushyanta Shan)

2
Staff
1
Punctuality
1
Helpfulness
1
Knowledge

He smeared me, cast aspersions and wrote erroneous information that was hostile to me in his report for the insurance company. Additionally, he passive-aggressively had a go at the profession of psychology. He has a long track record of smearing and casting aspersions against patients, and of coming up with medical opinions hostile to patients (see his record in many court cases here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1567873976779054&id=1567809653452153 and here https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dush-Shan-Questioning-his-medical-opinions/1567809653452153 ) It took me over a year to obtain from him a copy of the audio-recording he made of the Workcover examination. I only obtained it after the intervention of the Health Services Commission. I wanted to correct his errors and the aspersions he cast with reference to the audio-recording. More than a year after I submitted these corrections to him, he has still not corrected his flawed report. My advice would be to refuse to see him. If an insurance company requires you be examined by him ask to see someone else. If the insurance company cuts your payments or entitlement to medical services, you can appeal by requesting a hearing at the Accident Compensation Conciliation. Ask to be examined by a Medical Panel (and also request back-pay). Unlike Dush Shan who receives a good portion of his wealth from corporations, Medical Panels do not receive their income from them.

Was this rating useful? 0

flag | Submitted August 4, 2015

2
Staff
1
Punctuality
1
Helpfulness
1
Knowledge

Don't let insurance companies pressure you or bully you to see this long-time patient smearer and aspersion caster. Feel free to say to them that as he has a long record of hostile opinions against patients for the benefit of those who pay him i.e. insurance companies (as per his record mentioned in the previous reviews), you have very, very little chance of getting a fair hearing by him. Ask to see someone else. Don't let insurance companies pressure you to see biased hacks. If the others they try to send you to are similarly hostile, for example they have been rated badly by patients (on this website or in Google, Yahoo or Bing searches) or their record in court cases is bad (which you can check here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/) refuse to see these as well. Tell the insurance company that if they cut your payments or refuse your claim because you refuse to see a psychiatrist like Dush Shan (aka Dushyanta Shan), you will appeal their decision via the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service and ask to be examined by a Medical Panel (which is the highest medical examination body in Victoria. It is statutorily independent and the examiners are not reliant on insurance companies for their income). Seeing Dush Shan (aka Dushyanta Shan) is not worth it for your welfare. To conclude, this is what judges have said about him Judge Strong (In Mitrevski v C Stokes & Co. P/L [2000]) “I did not find him (Dr Shan) particularly convincing.” Judge Davis (In Touwslager v Fibreglass Transport Equipment P/L [2007]) Dr Shan’s report was “of little assistance … it’s conclusions were purely speculative.” Judge Lauritsen (Jackson v Woolworths Limited (Workcover) 2011) ‘I prefer Paoletti’s opinions to those of Shan. They are based on a history, which largely accords with my findings. There is no troubling, unexplained, change of diagnosis.’ Judge Bowman (Muir v Oak Park Formwork Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2010]) “I do not accept the view of Dr Shan … I prefer the views of other experts, such as Dr Honey …The plaintiff had no history of psychological or psychiatric disorders prior to the accident. All his symptoms have arisen since the accident.’ Judge Beach (In Norris v Brumar (Victoria) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009]) ‘I found his opinions (i.e. Dr Shan’s) to be of no great assistance.’ Judge Ashley (Brumar (Vic) Pty Ltd v Norris; Brown v Maurice Blackburn Cashman [2010]) ‘I do not accept the conclusions stated to the contrary by Dr Shan and Dr Kornan, based upon their limited knowledge of the plaintiff.’ Judge Kennedy (in Viney v Invensys Rail & Anor) 'I also reject, in particular the contrary opinion of doctor Mendlson and the opinion of Dr Shan'

Was this rating useful? 2

flag | Submitted March 5, 2015

3
Staff
1
Punctuality
1
Helpfulness
1
Knowledge

This is Part 2 of 2 Mitrevski v C Stokes & Co. P/L [2000] VCC 1 (28 January 2000) [Judge Strong] Major Case. Judge Strong takes Dr Shan to task. Dr Shan refuses to blame work for contributing to Mr Mitrevski’s condition. He blames lifestyle factors and biology - but not work, for accelerating the patient’s schizophrenia but is forced to concede the point during testimony (after Mr Mitrevski had to go through the stress of going to court). Judge Strong said “I did not find him (Dr Shan) particularly convincing.” Baljas and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 225 (20 March 2008) [Tribunal Member Mr Egon Fice] Dr Shan under-diagnoses the medical condition in comparison to the other psychiatrists. He cast a smear against Mr Baljas “he [Mr Baljas] did not appear to be motivated to attempt any kind of work” Jovevski v Wingfoot Australia Partner Pty Ltd [2013] VCC 996 (21 August 2013) [Judge Smith] Dr Shan finds a mild Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood and speculated as to Mr Jovevski personality, stating it was difficult to distinguish from his “naturally emotional personality”. Judge Smith and the other psychiatrists instead find major psychiatric conditions such as major depression and PTSD. c) Value Judgements/Name calling of patients by Dr Shan Norris v Brumar (Victoria) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] VSC 218 (9 June 2009) [Judge Beach] Ms Norris was the victim of an armed hold-up. Ms Norris’ practitioners found she had PTSD with related anxiety and depression, along with concentration problems. They found she had an incapacity for work. Dr Shan said she was exaggerating her condition and that she had no incapacity for work. He offered the following opinion concerning Ms Norris (the victim of an armed hold up): ‘In his first report {Dr Shan} makes the statement that he would expect that if the plaintiff was the owner of the petrol station instead of an employee “she would be considerably motivated to overcome any residual fears”.’ Judge Beach stated he found Dr Shan’s opinion to be of no great assistance. He ruled in favour of Ms Norris. Warfe v Woolworths (Vic) Pty Ltd (2011) [Judge Kings] Dr Shan’s role here is that he claims Mr Warfe said he was not working whereas Mr Warfe denies this and having been asked the question. d) Inconsiderate of patients Each time Dr Shan comes up with his misdiagnoses of patients (all motivated by his ideological hostility to them as evidenced in his statements concerning the mentally ill in Attachment 1c) Section 1), he allegedly demonstrates inconsideration for the vulnerable. Combined with his smears and false inferences resulting in patients having to go to court to overturn his medical opinions, he makes lives needlessly stressful and difficult for the mentally ill. I believe it takes an inconsiderate person to do this to vulnerable people. In the case below, Dr Shan generously opines that workers compensation is exacerbating the patient’s condition – he does not mention the stress caused by seeing and having to deal with allegedly biased medical examiners like himself. I believe what he said here is no doubt, music to the ears of insurance companies [please refer to Section 1e)]. Goldsmith v SPC Ardmona Operations Ltd [2009] VSC 445 (5 October 2009) [Judge Williams] - Dr Shan opined that workers compensation aggravates stress conditions (no mention of the effect of biased IME reports such as the ones he often writes being a specific contributor) - Dr Shan suggested a move from country Victoria. I do wonder if he considered the viability of this in light of Ms Goldmith’s age at the time (48), the financial costs involved [particularly a move from the country to the far more expensive city – without there being a ready job to go to], and her dislocation from her family. Jackson v Woolworths Limited (Workcover) (please refer to b) above concerning Dr Shan’s gross speculation and inferences hostile to patients) Mitrevski v C Stokes & Co. P/L [2000] VCC 1 (28 January 2000) (please refer to a) concerning under-diagnosis) e) Cases where Dr Shan omitted mention of his potential conflict of interest/previous associations with other people involved in the case O'Flaherty and Comcare [2007] AATA 2056 (14 December 2007) [Tribunal Member Ms. Regina Perton] [Dr Shan didn’t mention to the patient he was the supervisor of trainees who advised the patient]

Was this rating useful? 0

flag | Submitted February 28, 2015

3
Staff
2
Punctuality
1
Helpfulness
1
Knowledge

If I had known his dodgy, biased record against patients, I would never have allowed myself to have been examined by him. Below is much of his published record divided into five categories This is Part 1 of 2 a) Dr Shan's Gross Speculation and inferences hostile to patients (usually his opinion is overturned by courts) Touwslager v Fibreglass Transport Equipment P/L [2007] VCC 717 (25 July 2007) [Judge Davis] Dr Shan speculated that Ms Touwslager’s condition was not caused by work but by the “possibility” Ms Touwslager was an alcoholic and that because her sister had bipolar disorder, that therefore work was not the contributor to her condition. The other psychiatrists and Judge Davis found that Ms Touwslager suffered a Major Depressive Disorder and Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia arising out of her employment. Judge Davis found Dr Shan’s report “to be of little assistance … it’s conclusions were purely speculative.” Jackson v Woolworths Limited (Workcover) 2011 [Judge Lauritsen] Major Case. Dr Shan changed his diagnosis from Adjustment Disorder to a pre-existing depressive disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Dr Shan smeared/prejudicially speculated that Mr Jackson was continuing to use Cannabis and that he had taken other amphetamines. Judge Lauritsen said: “Shan inferred Jackson’s continued use of Amphetamines despite no history of such use … Shan’s inference of continued amphetamine use was unwarranted.” Judge Lauritsen concluded: ‘I prefer Paoletti’s opinions to those of Shan. They are based on a history, which largely accords with my findings. There is no troubling, unexplained, change of diagnosis. Muir v Oak Park Formwork Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2010] VCC 1765 (8 December 2010) [Judge Bowman] Dr Shan speculates about Mr Muir’s personality in a way much more negatively than other psychiatrists Judge Bowman’s comments are pertinent: “I also accept that such injury arises directly from the accident of 23 January 2004. I do not accept the view of Dr Shan that, whilst the pain disorder has arisen as a consequence of the physical injury suffered, the significant or major contributing factor is the patient’s personality and habits.” Jovevski v Wingfoot Australia Partner Pty Ltd [2013] VCC 996 (21 August 2013) (see above in a) concerning under-diagnosis) Dzelalagic, Mesud v Caprice Australia Pty Ltd [2005] VCC 877 (29 August 2005) [Judge Anderson] Dr Shan says that Mr Mersud “was seeking to emphasise all aspects of his condition and its relationship to his employment". The intention here appears to be to attempt to discredit Mr Mersud. b) Dr Shan’s Medical opinion doesn’t hold up (includes cases where he under-diagnosed the patient’s condition) - Brumar (Vic) Pty Ltd v Norris; Brown v Maurice Blackburn Cashman [2010] VSCA 206 (25 August 2010) [Judges Ashley, Mandie and Ross] The court found Ms Norris (a victim of an armed hold-up) suffered from anxiety, depression, insecurity, and has panic attacks, and that all these would be long-term. IME’s Dr Shan and Dr Kornan had disagreed. Sulja v George Weston Foods Pty Ltd [2009] VCC 311 (4 March 2009) [Judge Shelton] Dr Shan speculated that Ms Sulja’s condition was not caused by work but by marital and family issues (the apparent belief by Dr Shan was/is that if there are family problems, then stress at work can’t contribute significantly/primarily to one’s mental condition!). Judge Shelton disagreed. Gerasimovska v Reefnale Pty Ltd [2008] VCC 1603 (18 December 2008) [Judge Campbell] Dr Shan speculated that “nonemployment related factors, such as the health of her husband and marital situation” influenced Ms Gerasimovska (and not work). Judge Campell disagreed and found non-employment factors to be in the minority. Bottel v J E Curtis P/L (formerly Bradman Stores Pty Ltd) ACN 004 226 368 [2003] VCC 14 (20 June 2003) [Judge Bourke] Dr Shan under-estimates Ms Bottel’s condition. Judge Bourke appears to have disagreed with Dr Shan.

Was this rating useful? 0

flag | Submitted February 26, 2015

Rate this Doctor

Dr. Dush Shan (aka Dushyanta Shan)'s Credentials


Facility Affiliations


Accepting New Patients

Unavailable


Biography

Unavailable


Languages

Unavailable


Education

Unavailable


Other Specialties

Unavailable


Areas of Expertise

Unavailable


Awards & Recognitions

Unavailable


Publications & Research

Unavailable


Insurance accepted by this Doctor

Other patients have successfully used these insurance providers, please call the Doctor's office to find out if your insurance plan is accepted.
Medicare


Sign up for our newsletter to get the latest health news and tips.