* 'The longest case in Australian history' 

  (words of Beth Wilson ex-Health Services Commissioner and reiterated by AHPRA and media sources)



 * AHPRA in its media release FAILS to acknowledge that the treatment challenged under the National Law was in relationship to,

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy and

LOKOMAT Robotic Gait Assisted Walking.

 The application of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy combined with LOKOMAT Robotic Gait Assisted Walking to assist neuroplasticity for brain and spinal cord injury was pioneered by Dr Malcolm R. Hooper 2006. 

 * LOKOMAT and other robotic innovations are now featured in many Australian hospitals with funding including NDIS for the exact same conditions Dr Hooper was held to account before VCAT.

SA Rehabilitation Conferecne October 201


  •   * Dr Ian Freckelton QC, for the Applicant on behalf of AHPRA and VGSO stated in his opening remarks that this was as a "test case in junk science"... with a "cohort of other cases sitting behind this case" (Freckelton).


  •  ** AHPRA's position initiated by the Chiropractic Board of Australia was to establish a 'junk science test case' for "novel and unique applications not supported by the greater percentage of medical doctors or medical organisation in Australia" (Freckelton).

This pivotal case is more than a test case for junk science. This case is about bias, corruption, departure of model litigant obligations and ultimately power - who controls Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for neurological disorders and who controls LOKOMAT Robotics for assisting those living in our community with disability.

You the reader are invited to read on and you will be alarmed by the evidence.


Concepts including Natural Justice, Model Litigant obligations, Procedural Fairness are all standards not required in the lower jurisdiction - Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal.

 *** So why does our Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009, enable AHPRA to run its matters in this jurisdiction?


  •  * "Hooper's Holy Grail Texts"  (words by Senior Member Robert Davis) were described by AHPRA leading Hyperbaric "Expert" as being:  "Misguided enthusiasts and not highly regarded by the majority of hyperbaric practitioners in Australia"  (Dr Ian Miller, Alfred Hospital Melbourne).

After 66-sittings days in VCAT, the Final Orders ruled in relationship to the "disputed therapies"


Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy 


  • * Dr Hooper gave an undertaking not to treat 10 conditions (predominantly hospital based conditions) offering this concession PRIOR to the substantive hearing. 

  • ** The VCAT Final Orders ruled in relationship to Dr Malcolm Hooper's use of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy that there were 'no restriction to the conditions' or 'pressure levels' or 'percentages of Oxygen being delivered'.


LOKOMAT Robotic Gait Assisted Walking

  • The VCAT Final Orders dropped everything in relationship to LOKOMAT.

  • * There were no restrictions in relation to the use of Lokomat or conditions being treated using Lokomat.

Combination Therapies challenged under AHPRA (2009-2013)

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for 71 conditions listed on the HyperMED website between the period 2006-2013. 

LOKOMAT Robotic Gait Assisted Walking Robotic Gait Assisted Walking

  • The applicants experts stated that there was "no scientific evidence to support the use of Robotics for neurorehabilitation for brain and spinal cord injured patients".

  • * Senior Member Robert Davis for VCAT preferred the Applicants expert Neurologist, Dr Andrew Churchyard who gave his evidence in opposition to Dr Hooper's overseas experts, stating that the "adult brain and spinal cord does NOT have the capacity for neuroplasticity."

  • * LOKOMAT and other robotic innovations are now featured in many Australian hospitals with funding including NDIS for the exact same conditions Dr Hooper was held to account before VCAT.

Other Media comments

Beth Wilson Health Services Commissioner, stated in the media stated:

"This was the longest practitioner case in Australian history"

 "This was a David and Goliath case" 

"The Chiropractic Board of Australia spent over $200,000 to get Dr Hooper"


  •  * Or was it bias, corruption and conspiracy deliberately run in the 'lower' jurisdiction of VCAT (Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal) and NOT before a Judge.


Cherry Picking Evidence

  • Leading 'Australian' Hyperbaric Medical experts were NOT relied on in Senior Member Robert Davis in his Final Orders.

  • * Instead SM Davis elected to 'cherry pick' the applicant's 'non-experts' to make the applicant's case and allegations.

Chief expert for the Applicant, Dr Andrew Churchyard Neurologist provides "false" evidence

  • After 5-days cross examination - AHPRA leading neurologist Dr Andrew Churchyard declares he is "not an expert" in Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy or Lokomat (Robotic Gait Assisted Training).

  • Dr Churchyard provides "false evidence" stating the "adult brain and spinal does not have the capacity for neuroplasticity".

  • * Dr Hooper's international experts provide evidence that "neuroplasticity occurs throughout life"

  • ** In contrast, VCAT SM Davis "prefers" Dr Churchyard's false evidence over the evidence of 5 overseas medical experts in HBOT.



Dr Churchyard "molested over 100 of his vulnerable disabled male patients" 'before, during and after' AHPRA used him as their expert in this VCAT test case.

Dr Churchyard Commits Suicide

  • Dr Churchyard commits suicide in 2016 after media exposure.



Beth Wilson (Health Services Commissioner)

  •  * Did Beth Wilson (HSC), VGSO (Victorian Government Solicitor's Office) and AHPRA (Carol Geyer Senior Legal Officer) know about Dr Churchyard long term predatory criminal behaviour whilst relying on his 'expert evidence' in VCAT?

  • Media reports after Dr Churchyard's suicide state that the Beth Wilson, the medical boards, AHPRA, VGSO knew of his "sexual predatory behaviour".

  • And probably the applicant's senior counsel, Dr Ian Freckelton QC knew of Churchyard's 'continuing' predatory behaviour and yet chose to run with Churchyard as the VCAT leading expert.

  • * Did the Chiropractic Board of Australia know about the corrupt and vexatious bias employed by Beth Wilson, AHPRA (Carol Geyer) and VGSO - or was the CBA used as a 'whipping post' to get up this test case? 







19th April 2017

Victorian Ombudsman

Level 2

570 Burke Street

Melbourne, 3000

By email:


Dear Ms. Deborah Glass OBE,

Re: Chiropractic Board of Australia vs Dr Malcolm R. Hooper B110/2010


Further to the letter attached from Jessica Hunter, Complainant Liaison Officer, National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner, I write seeking the Victorian Ombudsman review.

I have copied my original email that was directed to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman.


Attached files include:


In addition, I have placed the following link with detailed content on our OXYMED website

Contained in this link are 30-photograph slides of key people with comments, involved in the matter before SM Robert Davis.


I seek special consideration from the Victorian Ombudsman to conduct a ‘complete investigation and review’ of this case and the ‘key players’ with public interest and the rights under our Democracy including natural justice and human rights.

I raise the issue of departure of Model Litigant obligations and breaches of the Crime Act 1958 S83A.

I specifically identify the conduct of the notifier Mr Ercan Tekin, Ms Beth Wilson Former Health Services Commissioner, Senior Member Robert Davis, Dr Ian Freckelton QC, Ms Carol Geyer and Dr Andrew Churchyard.


I am available to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter further.


Your sincerely,


Malcolm R. Hooper

8 March 2017

National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner
GPO Box No 2630
Melbourne, Victoria, 3001

Email address:

"Novel and Unique therapies not supported by the greater percentage of medical doctors or medical organisations in Australia" (Dr Freckelton QC for AHPRA)

Dear Ombudsman,

I refer to the VCAT matter Chiropractic Board of Australia v Dr Malcolm R Hooper B110/2010.

The case sat for 66-sitting days with the substantive hearing before SM Robert Davis with Final Orders in August 2013.


I write this complaint as I have just reviewed the article by Andrew Bolt published in 2004, including VCAT Senior Member Mr Robert Davis and his incredible bias. Mr Bolt’s article seems to mirror many of the procedural concerns, incredible bias and corruption displayed by SM Davis in my case. 


I have been registered as a chiropractor since 1983 however, I have not practiced as a traditional chiropractor for over 26-years.

In 1993, after my daughter suffered third degree burns and my attention was drawn to Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) to assist her recovery.

In 1995, I commenced using HBOT as part of our clinical practice and in 2006, I incorporated Lokomat (Robotic Gait Assisted Walking). The combination were a world first.

A complaint was lodged against me in 2009 by a former patient – Mr Ercan Tekin.

 * Mr Tekin stated under cross evidence, the reason for attending was “to better prepare myself for overseas stem cell therapies”.


Mr Tekin was 'intending on travelling overseas for stem cell therapies to better assist his neurological condition'.

Mr Tekin had an MRI prior to attending the HyperMED clinic. His condition of cerebral palsy was due to an infantile stroke with residual brain changes.

Reason for his complaint to AHPRA

 * Mr Tekin stated under cross examination that he “lodged his complaint to avoid the debt”.


The complaint was elevated by Beth Wilson Health Services Commissioner, and the Chiropractic Board of Australia to a full VCAT Tribunal Hearing without any form of mediation as Beth Wilson, AHPRA and the Chiropractic Board had ‘formed the view’ that I was of ‘bad character’.


I was not offered mediation, instead the Tekin complaint was escalated to a full VCAT Hearing seeking a 'test case on junk science'.

The VCAT allegations against me were framed on the basis that the ‘combination of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) and Lokomat (Robotic Gait Assisted Walking)’ were viewed as "novel and unique and not supported by the greater percentage of medical doctors and or medical organisations in Australia".

Who is Beth Wilson, Health Services Commissioner

Worksafe Video Presentation - Beth Wilson 2008

The Players -  (click on the picture story below)


  •  * Robotics now impacts neurorehabilitation world wide including Australia - so why was AHPRA (2009-2013) so vexatious in its action against Dr Hooper for his "novel and unique therapies"

The contentious '71 conditions' listed on Hooper's 2007 website came from the Jain Textbook of Hyperbaric Medicine, p76 'Summary of International Conditions Using HBOT'. Dr Bennett, AHPRA's leading hyperbaric expert says the Jain text is not 'highly regarded in Australia'. Dr Miller Alfred Hospital Hyperbaric, in his initial report to AHPRA says 'Jain is a misguided enthusiast'.
SM Davis Final Orders says 'Hooper relies on his text which are his Holy Grail'.
Melbourne University Robotics 2019
SM Davis drops everything in relation to the Lokomat - is this because the Royal Melbourne Hospital $750,000 fund raising for their Lokomat also featured the same conditions Hooper was held to account in the VCAT? SM Davis Final Orders did not address Lokomat.
"The Chiropractic Board of Australia spent $200,000 to get Dr Hooper". Then why was the 'bill' over $1M? Who paid the applicant’s bill including the Victorian Government Solicitors Office (VGSO), Dr Ian Freckelton QC and AHPRA’s costs to run “the longest case in Australian history”.
AHPRA used Professor Freckelton QC to represent its 'test case' and an expert in professional misconduct matters. It is unlikely Dr Freckelton did not know about Dr Churchyard's criminal behavior. Why has AHPRA and Dr Freckelton departed from 'Model Litigant' obligations? Dr Freckelton's bias 'misled' the VCAT Tribunal by not informing the VCAT of Dr Churchyard's conduct. Or did SM Davis have prior knowledge of Dr Churchyard and reason he was the VCAT member appointed?
AHPRA leading expert concedes he is NOT an expert in Hyperbaric or Lokomat. SM Davis 'prefers' his evidence.
Dr Churchyard commits suicide after molesting at least 100 of his vulnerable patients. His predatory criminal behavior had been continuing since 2003.
As the Health Services Commissioner did Beth Wilson know of Dr Churchyard's history during my VCAT? Was Dr Churchyard 'un-chaperoned' during my VCAT? Why was his evidence relied on as the leading AHPRA expert?
Dr Michael Bennett from Prince of Wales Hospital NSW was AHPRA's prime Hyperbaric Expert. His evidence was NOT used in the Final Orders by SM Davis, who 'cherry picked' non expert evidence to make out its Dr/Patient misconduct allegations.
Dr Ian Miller is the Alfred Hospital Hyperbaric Specialist. In response to questions regarding what conditions he would treat in private practice - he said it would be 'the toss of the coin' based on 'his experience'. SM Davis did not use his evidence to make out the Dr/Patient misconduct allegations. In his initial report to AHPRA he describes Professor K. K. Jain' (Textbook in Hyperbaric Medicine) as a 'misguided enthusiast'. Miller says he is NOT a expert in neurologic HBOT or Lokomat.
Professor Karen Dodd Physiotherapist discredited the globally recognized Lokomat (Robotic Gait Assisted Walking) but admitted her physiotherapy profession had a lower scientific evidence base than Lokomat. Dodd and AHPRA acknowledge over 906 scientific articles on the HyperMED website in 2007. Dodd says you 'could not see the trees for the forest'. Dodd states before VCAT she is NOT a expert in Lokomat. SM Davis 'cherry picked' her evidence.
Dr Phillip Ebrall Chiropractic Expert for AHPRA was discredited by the powerful lobby group 'Friends of Science in Medicine' for chiropractic 'junk science'. SM Davis ordered 'no scientific questions could be asked' to the efficacy of chiropractic vs efficacy of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy or Lokomat. Dr Ebrall said in VCAT he was NOT an expert in either HBOT or Lokomat.
SM Davis 'cherry picked' his evidence.
Dr Pierre Maoris Medical Rehabilitation Physician, Canada, is the world's leading expert on HBOT and Cerebral Palsy. Dr Marois has been involved in every leading study on HBOT and Cerebral Palsy. In 2006, Dr Marois was the leading expert evidence in the State of Georgia Court USA which ruled in favor of Medicare funding for HBOT and Cerebral Palsy. He was asked the same questions in VCAT. SM Davis placed lower value on his witness and 'preferred' other non-expert evidence.
Dr Kenneth Stoller Medical Physician and President of the International Hyperbaric Medical Foundation IHMF (2013). Dr Stoller's VCAT evidence in support of the Jain Textbook conditions and Hooper is 'ignored' by SM Davis because Davis wrongly rules he is a 'chiropractor'.
Tekin 'wipes the web' removing his fund raising website and promotional YouTube postings after lodging his complaint. This is 'destruction of evidence'. SM Davis forgives his actions.
Tekin is a constant 'blogger' to the benefits of HBOT and Lokomat. All blogs, postings and YouTube clips on his benefits are 'wiped from the web'.
Tekin says in VCAT that he received 3-months 'free treatment' from Dr Hooper.
Tekin says in VCAT that his "balance and gait had improved over 20%" .... "My doctor says whatever you are doing - keep doing it."
Tekin says in VCAT that a "blood clot in his leg had completely disappeared".
Tekin says in VCAT that his "walking has improved and he is no longer falling over as before". SM Davis says his improvement is due to a 'Hawthorne Participation Effect' (placebo). This is remarkable given he had fixed neurological disabilities for over 30-years.
Tekin acknowledges in VCAT that he only paid less than 10% of his bill. Tekin says in VCAT that he was never pursued legally by Hooper or the clinic.
Beth Wilson and Ercan Tekin are 'Facebook Friends' - nothing unusual here!
Beth Wilson & Tekin 'Friends' on Facebook
Beth Wilson & Tekin 'Friends' on Facebook
Tekin's video promoting the benefits of HBOT and Lokomat. The current Health Services Commissioner directed this video 'be removed from public exhibition'. This was because Ercan Tekin lodged a complaint requesting the video of him to be removed from the HyperMED website.
In contrast to his 'evidence in VCAT' - Tekin appears with Beth Wilson on several national media channels and says 'Hooper should be shut down'.
Go Fund Me $65,000
Tekin current fund raising project - please help!
Go Fund Me $80,000
$80,000 for a new kitchen - please donate!
Tekin on a dating site
Who was vulnerable?
Who was exploited?
Victorian Grant Application 2014
SA Government Funding Lokomat
SA Womens and Childrens Hospital
SA Premier features LOKOMAT
Medicare covers LOKOMAT
SA AFL Football fundraising LOKOMAT
Show More

The Notifier to AHPRA

The Motive

  •  * "I lodged the complaint to avoid the debt". (Mr Tekin) 

Mr Tekin confirmed in the VCAT

  •  * "established his own fund raising charity and fundraising website" and confirmed that he was "promoting the benefits he was gaining using HBOT and Lokomat".

  •  * "received 3-months free treatment" from HyperMED.

  •  * only paid less than 10% of his bill - "yes".

  •  * was not pursued by the clinic or Dr Hooper with legal action - "correct".

  •  * received only one letter of request for ‘some form of payment’ approximately 13 months after he had ceased treatment at HyperMED - "correct".

  •  * during this period he was still actively using his fundraising website - "correct".

  •  * lodged 6-complaints against Dr Hooper - "correct".

  •  * removed his website and ‘wiped the web’ after lodging his complaints - "correct".

  •  * confirmed under cross examination that he had "not lost the improvements he gained during treatment’ – of course, under Dr Freckelton examination Mr Tekin’s story differed.

Dr Ian Freckelton QC - 'a test case with a cohort of others sitting behind'

  • The case was referred to as a ‘test case’ by Dr Freckelton QC for the applicant, with a ‘cohort of others sitting behind’.


Cochrane Collaboration - the 'preferred standard'

  • The case was the first AHPRA professional conduct case where the ‘Cochrane Collaboration’ was relied on as the ‘preferred standard’ of medical evidence.

  • Incidentally, of the 19-HBOT conditions reviewed under Cochrane, there is virtually little supporting evidence for any condition reviewed.

  •  * Based on Cochrane Standards, Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy worldwide would cease to exist.

VCAT Senior Member Robert Davis 'bias to evidence'

  • SM Davis ordered that Dr Hooper could NOT rely on any clinical evidence from countries that did NOT have a ‘comparable health care plan to that of Australia’ – only evidence published out of the USA and the UK was permitted. 

  •  * SM Davis ruled that evidence from China, Russia, Japan, and most of the EU etc. were inadmissible in this 'Australian' VCAT case.

After 66-sitting days Dr Hooper's defense, cost in excess of $1M to defend his character

VCAT Final Orders - "A deterrent to others .."

  • The VCAT final orders ruled that Dr Malcolm Hooper was of "good character" and "unyielding in his beliefs". 

  •  * However "as a deterrent to others, Dr Hooper is to be deregistered as a chiropractor with all costs award against  him".

Contrary to Beth Wilson's media claim - "the Chiropractic Board spent $200,000 to get Dr Hooper"Dr Hooper received the following invoices:

  • Disbursements - $279,725 (J Kummrow VGSO letter Nov 2013)

  • Additional costs March 2016 -  $144,551 (Rapsey Griffiths March 2016)

  • Additional costs December 2016 - $787,580 plus GST (Holding Redlich Dec 2016)

  • Total $1,211,856 

Who paid the Applicants legal costs?

  • I have not been satisfied as to who paid the applicant’s bill including the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office (VGSO), Dr Ian Freckelton QC and AHPRA’s costs to run “the longest case in Australian history” (media release spoken by ‘Beth Wilson former Health Services Commissioner’).


 AHPRA, VGSO and the CBA remain quiet on the issue of costs.

  • Dr Freckelton QC informed the VCAT Tribunal that it was the "Chiropractic Association members that were paying for this action against Dr Hooper".

  • However, there has never been a special levy against the chiropractic members or any public financial record to reflect payment of the applicant’s legal fees.


Who paid the legals fees of Dr Freckelton QC, VGSO and AHPRA?

The 71 Conditions


  • SM Davis ignored the Jain text (and also 30-folders of presented clinical papers) based on the applicant's expert Dr Michael Bennett.

  • Dr Bennett is the hyperbaric doctor from Sydney who stated that the Jain text was NOT highly regarded in Australia – his simple statement influenced SM Davis who summarily dismissed the Jain text. 

  •  * Dr Bennett conceded he had no experience using HBOT for the wider applications of Hyperbaric other than the limited conditions covered under Medicare.

  •  ** Dr Bennett conceded under cross examination that many if not all of the Medicare approved conditions also did not meet 'Cochrane Standards’.

  • SM Davis dismissed this concession in favour of the applicant.

Notifier - the issue of "informed consent"

  • Mr Tekin acknowledged in the VCAT that he had received 2-chapters from the Jain textbook and other intake forms by mail prior to attending.

  • The Jain chapters included:   * Chapter 22 HBO Therapy in the Management of Cerebral Palsy.   ** Chapter 18 The Role of Hyperbaric Oxygenation in the Management of Stroke


  • In contrast, SM Davis stated that "Dr Hooper failed to get ‘proper’ informed consent".

  •  * Mr Tekin, in contrast to SM Davis stated before the VCAT that “the first 2-consultations were fine" ... I had also done a lot of my own research and was satisfied with the information given to me”

SM Robert Davis 'expert evidence bias'

  • SM Davis disallowed any scientific questions of any nature of any of the experts the applicant relied upon.

  • The reason for the order according to SM Davis was that the applicant's experts were "not experts" in Hyperbaric and or Lokomat and that this VCAT matter was "not comparable to their profession".

  • When Dr Hooper attempted to ask scientific questions of the chiropractic experts for the applicant, SM Davis restricted any questions in relation to Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy and or Lokomat as "this was not chiropractic", or "physiotherapy", or "mainstream medical".

  •  * SM Davis constantly excused the applicant's experts as they were "NOT experts in HBOT or Lokomat".

Dr Hooper lodged a bias application against SM Davis.

  • How could the professional conduct of Dr Hooper be compared to others of the chiropractic profession if the Tribunal would not allow comparison of science of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy or Lokomat when compared to the science or the standards of the chiropractic profession?

  • SM Davis constantly ‘moved the goal posts in favour of the applicant’.

  • In the Final Orders, SM Davis ‘cherry picked’ from its AHPRA's experts to make the allegations.  

  •  * None of the Hyperbaric medical experts were used in SM Davis’s final orders for the applicant to make out its allegations.

  •  ** All non hyperbaric experts conceded they were not experts in either hyperbaric or Lokomat.

Dr Andrew Churchyard Neurologist Chief Witness, concedes he is 'not an expert' in HBOT or Lokomat

  • Dr Andrew Churchyard Neurologist was a chief witness for the applicant. 

  • Dr Churchyard initially declared in VCAT that he was an "expert in all neurologic cases".

  •  * Finally after 5-days robust cross examination Churchyard conceded he was NOT an expert in neurologic applications of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy or the use of Lokomat for neurologic conditions.

  •  ** In contrast to the applicants leading neurologist expert evidence, SM Davis Final Orders were dismissive of Dr Churchyard concessions and relied on Dr Churchyard’s examination by Dr Freckelton.

Dr Churchyard - "Applicant's Expert & Sexual Predator"



 Dr Churchyard was ‘unchaperoned’ during the VCAT period.


  What a departure of model litigant obligations - surely this is a serious issue for the applicant, AHPRA and more specifically Beth Wilson former Victorian Health Services Commissioner?

Beth Wilson to the rescue of the public image of AHPRA

  • Immediately after the Dr Churchyard suicide death went to the media, it was Beth Wilson who was on the front foot claiming outrage that this type of abusive conduct could occur with Health professionals.

  • Did Beth Wilson have prior knowledge of Dr Churchyard's activities given at some point he was under chaperoned?

  • Did Beth Wilson allow Dr Churchyard to be unchaperoned prior to AHPRA starting its case against me in 2010?

  •  * If Beth Wilson knew of Dr Churchyard’s predatory criminal behaviour, then why did Beth Wilson, AHPRA, CBA and VCAT Robert Davis rely on his evidence?

Beth Wilson and the Notifier are blogging "Friends on Facebook"

  • Evidence of Beth Wilson blogging into Mr Tekin’s Facebook.

  •  * A lay person would agree that this is highly irregular conduct for a Health Services Commissioner.

SM Davis referred to the Lokomat as a "glorified treadmill like device".

  • The cost associated with the Lokomat included both the adult and pediatric Lokomat modules at a cost in excess of $750,000.

October 2017 South Australian public release 



Robotic rehabilitation comes to Australia

Article by: Nicole Madigan | Last Updated: 09-10-2017

Photo: Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital

"Children with serious neurological conditions will benefit from the increasing global presence of Artificial Intelligence and robotics, with the opening of Australia's first robotic rehabilitation gym.
Two years of planning culminated in the opening of the gym at the Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital in August,  featuring two robotic machines to help improve walking and hand-eye coordination, as well as develop muscle strength, power and range of arm movement.
"This is a gym that utilises robotic technologies to assist people with neurological impairments to achieve a higher functional level," says Associate Professor Ray Russo, Head of Research, Paediatric Rehabilitation Department, Adelaide Hospital.
"Robots are machines that can carry out a complex series of functions, usually under the control of a computer.

"This really helps when you are seeking repetition in a motivating environment as you can use feedback from the machines to generate visual cues to assist the person’s motivation."
This is the first Robotics Gym of its kind in Australia, utilising three key robotic technologies.

The Lokomat – a robotic device to support the participant in standing and help guide their walking practice to improve gait.

The Armeo – an upper limb robotic device used to improve upper limb function through the use of a support mechanism and computer gaming system.

The Dynavision – a visuo-motor training system used to improve upper limb function, balance and eye-hand coordination. The lab is also interested in innovative robotic technologies so we are on the lookout to assess other robotic and innovative devices that may assist functional recovery.

The use of robotic technology is effective in aiding the rehabilitation for any impairment in which many repetitions of an activity are required to improve functional outcome.
However, two other critical issues are support and sensory feedback, says Professor Russo.
"The robotic technologies can support a participant in maximising training effects. For example, the Lokomat can offer gait practice even if the person cannot stand well independently because of the supportive harness," he says.
"Also, the robotic technologies offer instant feedback - visual, auditory and sensory - through the apparatus and the computer screens that greatly assist progress in rehabilitation.
"For example, asking a child to 'use their quads' means nothing to them until they can literally see the changes on the feedback graph when they extend their knee, picked up by the robotic sensors on the Lokomat.
"The participant quickly learns that movement is what is required and this assists learning greatly, which can then be translated into real world functioning."
While the gym has only been operating a short time, anecdotal results show a positive outcome for patients.
"Patients have provided positive feedback about the use of the equipment, specifically the ‘gaming’ component, and improvements in their function and comfort," says onsite Physiotherapist and Australian Physiotherapy Association member Marianne Spizzo.
"Family and therapists have noted the high motivation levels for robotics, and this has been used to further challenge patients from strength and endurance perspectives, that have been more difficult to achieve in the traditional rehabilitation gym."


But while the use of robotic technology appears to offer a clear advantage to rehabilitation in this area, the presence of an qualified physiotherapist is crucial. "The presence of a physiotherapist is critical in the set-up of the equipment itself and the set-up of the patient in the equipment," says Ms Spizzo.  
"Furthermore once the set-up is complete, the physiotherapist needs to make constant adjustments to the hardware and software components to ensure the rehabilitation capacity of the patient and the equipment is maximised and any safety concerns minimised. 
"Although further high quality research is needed, the current evidence suggests that over-ground training is needed to ensure translation of the skills acquired whilst using robotics to real life activities, and this will still require the skills of a therapist."

Due to the high cost of the technology, robotics are not commonly utilised, however as prices reduce over time robotics are expected to become more prevalent in the rehabilitation process.
"Robotics have already undergone revolutionary changes as a technology that was only used to assist people with neurological impairments to complete functional activities, to one where they are being used to improve functional outcome for patients," says Professor Russo.
"This has been a major advance and now with their application occurring more broadly the field is growing.
"In the future, as with most technologies, prices for the robotics will reduce making them more available and technological advances will lead to better robotics.
"For these reasons robotic technologies in rehabilitation of people with neurological disabilities is seen as a growth area with great potential."

Royal Melbourne Hospital (2013) commenced its fundraising to purchase its own Lokomat advertising the same conditions 

Dr Hooper's Government funding submissions

Costs order - "Dr Hooper wasted the time in VCAT"

  • The applicant changed the ‘eight allegations’ against Dr Hooper ‘seven times’ including 2 changes during the substantive hearing.

  •  * Mr Davis stated that Dr Hooper had 'wasted the time' in VCAT defending the efficacy of HBOT for neurologic conditions and to the use of Lokomat.

Bias, Corruption and Conspiracy - Vexatious Applicant

  • Has there been continuing bias, corruption and conspiracy against  Dr Hooper in VCAT originating under Beth Wilson (ex-Worksafe) and past Victorian Health Minister Jill Hennessy?

Before Judge Ross & Judge Hicks

  • Prior to the substantive hearing there were several preliminary Directions Hearing before Judge Ross and also Judge Hicks.

  •  * Judge Hicks requested confinement of the issues with concessions. Dr Freckelton QC, for the applicant agreed before Judge Hicks then later withdrew from this position before SM Davis.

SM Davis and Dr Ian Freckelton "worked together for over 20-years"

  • The applicant chose to run the substantive hearing before SM Davis.

  •  * In response to questions of bias, SM Davis responded - “Dr Freckelton and I have worked closely together for over 20-years in multiple VCAT matters”.

Media Manipulation

  • The HyperMED web site has never offered or used the word "cure".

  •  * This reporting in the media and words by Minister Jill Hennessy and Health Services Commissioner Beth Wilson are false and deceptive.


I seek special consideration from the Ombudsman to review this case with public interest and the rights under our Democracy.


Malcolm R. Hooper

OXYMED Australia 

643 Chapel Street, South Yarra 3141 Australia

643 Chapel Street South Yarra 3141 Australia

T: +61 3 9826 9898  E:  

All rights reserved 2020