HCCC v Dr Theodore Potts [2007] NSWMT 8

New South Wales Medical Tribunal

CITATION : HCCC v Dr Theodore Potts [2007] NSWMT 8 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal PARTIES : Health Care Complaint's Commission Dr Theodore Potts FILE NUMBER(S) : 40022 of 2006 CORAM: Ainslie-Wallace, DCJ - Wright, Dr J M - Howle, Dr S - Houen, Ms J CATCHWORDS: Capacity to practise medicine - Cognitive deficits LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 S36 & S37 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; CASES CITED: HCCC v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630; Grant v HCCC [2003] NSWCA 73 DATES OF HEARING: 16.7.2007. 17.7.2007, 18.7.2007 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17 August 2007 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: P Griffin of Counsel M Bozic SC ORDERS: 1. The respondent's name forthwith be removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners; 2. The respondent be not permitted to make an application for re-registration for two (2) years from the date of this order; 3. The respondent pay the applicant's costs.

JUDGMENT: THE MEDICAL TRIBUNAL Friday 17th August 2007 OF NEW SOUTH WALES AT SYDNEY No. 40022 of 2006 BETWEEN Health Care Complaints Commission Complainant Dr Theodore Potts Respondent

Deputy Chair: Judge A M Ainslie-Wallace Members: Dr J M Wright Dr S Howle Ms J Houen

Orders and Reasons for Determination

Order:

Pursuant to Clause 6 of Schedule 2 to the Medical Practice Act 1992 the Tribunal has made a Non Publication Order in respect of the names of the patients referred to in the proceedings.

Introduction:

The Health Care Complaints Commission (the "HCCC") brings two complaints against the respondent, a medical practitioner.[1] Complaint 1 alleges that the respondent is impaired in that he suffers from physical and/or mental disorders, namely cognitive deficits, which detrimentally affect or are likely to affect his physical and/or mental capacity to practise medicine. Complaint 2 alleges that the respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and/or professional misconduct within the meaning of sections 36 and 37 of the Medical Practice Act, 1992 in that he has demonstrated that the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised by him in the practice of medicine is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. The respondent conceded each of the particulars of the second complaint and conceded that in respect of each particular, the conduct alleged amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct.