New South Wales
Medical Tribunal
CITATION: In Re Dr Peter William STEWART [2005] NSWMT 15 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal PARTIES: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant)
Dr Peter William STEWART (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): 40028 of 2004 CORAM: Walmsley, SC DCJ - Child, Dr D - Gordon, Dr P - Kusuma, Ms R CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct - Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct - Inappropriately prescribing anabolic steroids LEGISLATION CITED: Ss. 36, 37 and 51(1) Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)
Cl 36 Poisons & Therapeutic Goods Regulation 1994
Medical Practice Regulation 1999CASES CITED: HCCC v Abou Hatoum [2004] NSWCA 30;
HCCC v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630;
In re Dr Graiche (MT 15 April 1998);
Pillai v Messiter No. 2 (1989) 16 NSWLR 197;
Prothonotary v Del Castillo [2001] NSWCA 75DATES OF HEARING: 24 November 2005
25 November 2005DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25 November 2005 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ms K. Eastman (Applicant)
Ms A. Katzmann S.C. (Respondent)ORDERS: 1.The Tribunal finds proved all particulars save for 3 in the amended complaint 2.The Tribunal is satisfied Dr Stewart is guilty of professional misconduct 3.Dr Stewart is reprimanded 4.Dr Stewart is fined $10,000. That sum is to be paid to the Medical Board of NSW by 24/1/06 5.The Tribunal directs that if Dr Stewart practices after 24/1/06 his registration be subject to the following conditions: (a)work only when there is another medical practitioner on site (b)not undertake any solo general practice work; (c)not prescribe, possess or administer any (i)anabolic steroid (ii)androgenic steroid 6.Dr Stewart is to pay the HCCC’s costs 7.The Tribunal directs that the Medical Board has the power to vary any of the conditions in order 5
JUDGMENT:
DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON:
1 For reasons which I am about to deliver, the Tribunal does find proved all the particulars save for three. For reasons which I am about to deliver, the Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Stewart is guilty of professional misconduct and we consider he ought be reprimanded, fined $10,000 and pay the costs of the Commission. Should he practise after 24 January next year, his registration should be subject to the conditions which I raised with counsel this morning.
2 Having announced what orders and findings we propose to make, I will now give reasons.
3 This application concerns a complaint by the Health Care Complaints Commission, (“the Commission”,) that Dr Stewart is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and/or professional misconduct: see ss 36 and 37 of the Medical Practice Act, (“the Act”).
4 The particulars assert:
1) Between December 1998 to November 2000 he prescribed anabolic/androgenic steroids to patients listed in schedules A to W, that the quantities prescribed were excessive or not for purposes in accordance with recognised therapeutic standards, contrary to clause 36 of the Poisons & Therapeutic Goods Regulation 1994, and without exercising responsible medical judgment;
2) it is said that for the patients who were listed there he failed to arrange for them to undergo proper tests to monitor testosterone levels and/or liver function prior to or…
Continue reading In Re Dr Peter William STEWART
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- In Re Dr Peter William STEWART [2005] NSWMT 15
- Case
- [2005] NSWMT 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Tribunal had to decide included whether Dr Stewart's actions constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct, the nature and extent of any misconduct, and the appropriate disciplinary measures to be imposed. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the allegations were proven beyond reasonable doubt and what form of penalty would be suitable given the gravity of the misconduct.
In its judgment, the Tribunal found that Dr Stewart's actions amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Stewart had prescribed anabolic steroids without proper medical justification, which was inappropriate and contrary to professional standards. The Tribunal imposed a reprimand and a fine of $10,000, which was to be paid to the Medical Board of NSW by a specified date. Furthermore, the Tribunal directed that if Dr Stewart were to practice after this date, his registration would be subject to strict conditions, including working only when another medical practitioner was on site, not engaging in solo general practice, and not prescribing, possessing, or administering anabolic or androgenic steroids. The Tribunal also ordered that Dr Stewart pay the costs of the Health Care Complaints Commission. Finally, the Tribunal gave the Medical Board the power to vary any of the conditions imposed.
The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of maintaining high professional standards in the medical field and the consequences that can follow from breaches of those standards. The penalties imposed were designed not only to punish Dr Stewart but also to deter similar conduct in the future and protect the public from unprofessional practices.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.The Tribunal finds proved all particulars save for 3 in the amended complaint 2.The Tribunal is satisfied Dr Stewart is guilty of professional misconduct 3.Dr Stewart is reprimanded 4.Dr Stewart is fined $10,000. That sum is to be paid to the Medical Board of NSW by 24/1/06 5.The Tribunal directs that if Dr Stewart practices after 24/1/06 his registration be subject to the following conditions: (a)work only when there is another medical practitioner on site (b)not undertake any solo general practice work; (c)not prescribe, possess or administer any (i)anabolic steroid (ii)androgenic steroid 6.Dr Stewart is to pay the HCCC’s costs 7.The Tribunal directs that the Medical Board has the power to vary any of the conditions in order 5
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.