In Re Dr Peter Keith - [2007] NSWMT 12

New South Wales

Medical Tribunal

CITATION: In Re Dr Peter Keith [2007] NSWMT 12

TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal

PARTIES: Dr Peter Keith
Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC)

FILE NUMBER(S): 40026 of 2006

CORAM: Rein, SC DCJ - Harris, Dr B - Harris, Dr N - Collier Ms A

CATCHWORDS: General practitioner inappropriately prescribed benzodiazepines and Pethidine to drug dependent patients when he knew or ought reasonably to have known of their drug dependence - Practitioner prescribed in inappropriate circumstances and on occasions without authority to prescribe - Practitioner admits his conduct was sufficiently serious to constitute professional misconduct - $20,000 fine imposed - Right to prescribe Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs removed - Other conditions imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW)

CASES CITED: HCCC v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA267 [67];
A Solicitor v Council of the NSW Law Society (2004) 216 CLR 253 ;
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v P [2003] NSWCA 320;
Ex parte Lenehan (1948) 77 CLR 403 ;
Prothonotary v Ritchard (BC8701242, NSWCA 31 July 1987);
NSW Bar Association v Maddocks (NSWCA 23 August 1998);
Gad v HCCC (2002) NSWCA 111 ;
HCCC v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630;
NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340 ;
Parkes v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 ;
Spicer v NSW Medical Board (NSWCA 19 February 1981 unreported)

DATES OF HEARING: 3, 4, 5, 6 December 2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19 December 2007

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mr M. Lynch (HCCC)
Ms A Katzmann S.C. (Dr Keith)

ORDERS: 1. Dr Keith is fined $20,000 in respect of his professional misconduct in the period 1998 to 2003.; 2. Conditions imposed on Dr Keith's right to practice (as set out in published reasons for judgment).; 3. Dr Keith to pay the costs of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT:

ORDERS

The Tribunal orders:

1 That Dr Keith be fined $20,000 in respect of his professional misconduct in the period 1998 to 2003.

2 That the following conditions be imposed on Dr Keith’s right to practice:

Education
1.1(i) Dr Keith is ordered to complete a relevant course(s) of education or training in the effects of and the prescribing guidelines in relation to Schedule 4, Schedule 4D and Schedule 8 drugs, and
(ii) Dr Keith is ordered to complete a relevant course(s) of education or training in relation to record keeping approved by the NSW Medical Board (“the Board”) within a period of time specified by the Board. Dr Keith is to obtain the Board’s approval for the course within 3 months of the date of the Tribunal’s order.
(iii) Within two weeks of completing the course, Dr Keith is to provide evidence to the Board that he has satisfactorily completed the course.

Counselling
1.2 Dr Keith is to attend on a psychiatrist for the purpose of counselling in relation to prescribing issues and dealing with addicted patients demands for a period of 12 months from the date of the first consultation (which is to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading In Re Dr Peter Keith

Details

AGLC: In Re Dr Peter Keith [2007] NSWMT 12
Case: [2007] NSWMT 12
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Dr Peter Keith, a general practitioner, who was found to have inappropriately prescribed benzodiazepines and Pethidine to patients known to be drug dependent. This behaviour spanned from 1998 to 2003 and was deemed to be professional misconduct. The case was adjudicated by the tribunal that regulates health practitioners in Australia, which has jurisdiction over matters concerning professional conduct.

The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether Dr Keith's actions constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what sanctions should be imposed. The tribunal examined the nature and extent of the prescribing practices, the knowledge Dr Keith had or should have had about his patients' drug dependencies, and the circumstances under which these prescriptions were issued. The tribunal also considered whether Dr Keith's conduct warranted a significant penalty, including the possibility of removing his right to prescribe certain medications.

The tribunal found that Dr Keith's conduct was indeed professional misconduct, given that he prescribed controlled substances without appropriate authority and in circumstances that endangered his patients. The tribunal imposed a fine of $20,000 and imposed conditions on Dr Keith's practice, including the removal of his right to prescribe Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs. Additionally, the tribunal ordered Dr Keith to cover the costs of the proceedings.

The tribunal's decision was informed by the severity of Dr Keith's misconduct and the need to protect public health and safety. The imposed conditions and sanctions were deemed necessary to address the breaches of professional standards and to ensure that Dr Keith's future practice would comply with regulatory requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dr Keith is fined $20,000 in respect of his professional misconduct in the period 1998 to 2003.; 2. Conditions imposed on Dr Keith's right to practice (as set out in published reasons for judgment).; 3. Dr Keith to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	In Re Dr Peter Keith [2007] NSWMT 12
TRIBUNAL:	Medical Tribunal
PARTIES:	Dr Peter Keith Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC)
FILE NUMBER(S):	40026 of 2006
CORAM:	Rein, SC DCJ - Harris, Dr B - Harris, Dr N - Collier Ms A
CATCHWORDS:	General practitioner inappropriately prescribed benzodiazepines and Pethidine to drug dependent patients when he knew or ought reasonably to have known of their drug dependence - Practitioner prescribed in inappropriate circumstances and on occasions without authority to prescribe - Practitioner admits his conduct was sufficiently serious to constitute professional misconduct - $20,000 fine imposed - Right to prescribe Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 drugs removed - Other conditions imposed
LEGISLATION CITED:	Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	HCCC v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA267 [67]; A Solicitor v Council of the NSW Law Society (2004) 216 CLR 253 ; Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v P [2003] NSWCA 320; Ex parte Lenehan (1948) 77 CLR 403 ; Prothonotary v Ritchard (BC8701242, NSWCA 31 July 1987); NSW Bar Association v Maddocks (NSWCA 23 August 1998); Gad v HCCC (2002) NSWCA 111 ; HCCC v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630; NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340 ; Parkes v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 ; Spicer v NSW Medical Board (NSWCA 19 February 1981 unreported)
DATES OF HEARING:	3, 4, 5, 6 December 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2007
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	Mr M. Lynch (HCCC) Ms A Katzmann S.C. (Dr Keith)
ORDERS:	1. Dr Keith is fined $20,000 in respect of his professional misconduct in the period 1998 to 2003.; 2. Conditions imposed on Dr Keith's right to practice (as set out in published reasons for judgment).; 3. Dr Keith to pay the costs of the proceedings.