In Re Dr David Charles Lindsay and the Medical Practice Act 1992 [2004] NSWMT 8

New South Wales Medical Tribunal

CITATION : In Re Dr David Charles Lindsay and the Medical Practice Act 1992 [2004] NSWMT 8 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal PARTIES : Health Care Complaints Commission Dr David Charles Lindsay FILE NUMBER(S) : 40009 of 2003 CORAM: - - - CATCHWORDS: Unsatisfactory professional conduct LEGISLATION CITED: Medical Practice Act 1992 Reffek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517 ; Bannister v Walton (1993) 30 NSWLR 699 ; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; CASES CITED: Dawson v Law Society of NSW (Court of Appeal, 21 December 1989, BC8901279); Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 ; Gill v Walton (1991) 25 NSWLR 190; Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23; Herron v McGregor (1986) 6 NSWLR 246 DATES OF HEARING: 27/04/04 (findings entered) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12 August 2004 ORDERS: 1. Dr Lindsay is severely reprimanded; 2. Pursuant to s61(l)(c) of the Medical Practice Act the following conditions are imposed upon Dr Lindsay's registration: ; (a) Dr Lindsay is to submit to a random audit of his medical records by a person or persons nominated by the Board ; (b) Dr Lindsay is to accept supervision by a person nominated by the Board to provide support and to monitor Dr Lindsay's capacity to practise medicine safely

JUDGMENT:

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

27 April 2004

Deputy Chairperson: Judge D J Freeman DCJ Tribunal Members: Dr D Glenn Dr J Kendrick Ms J Houen

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT THE NAME OF THE PATIENTS OR ANY MATTER CAPABLE OF IDENTIFYING THE PATIENTS BE NOT PUBLISHED These proceedings were instituted by a complaint of the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) apparently filed in 2003. Details of the originating complaint are not before this Tribunal. The hearing proceeded on the basis of a Further Amended Complaint dated 3 March 2004, that is a few days before the hearing commenced on 8 March 2004. That Further Amended Complaint was in the following terms: "David Charles Lindsay, being a Medical Practitioner registered under the Act, has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of Section 36 of the Act, in that the Practitioner has demonstrated a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care in the practice of medicine. PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINT PATIENT A 1. The practitioner failed to provide adequate information to Patient A prior to excising a lesion from his lower leg on 14 February 2000, in that the practitioner: (a) failed to discuss adequately the possibility that further surgery may need to be performed; (b) failed to explain adequately the procedure; (c) failed to inform Patient A that he was sending the specimen to pathology for further investigation. 2. The practitioner provided inadequate post-operative care in that he: (a) told Patient A that he was going to die when there was no clinical indication that Patient A had a life-threatening condition; (b) informed Patient A that he required urgent surgery when there was no clinical indication for such urgency; (c) failed to provide Patient A with a copy of his pathology results when he requested them; (d) failed to adequately explain Patient A's pathology results to him; (e) wrote an inappropriate letter dated 12 April 2000 to Patient A; (f) the practitioner failed to discuss the option of referral to a specialist to Patient A. 3. The practitioner failed to maintain adequate and legible medical records in relation to Patient A. PATIENT B 1. The Practitioner failed to obtain permission and/ or informed consent to excise a lesion from Patient B's face , on 3 April 2000 2. The Practitioner failed to provide adequate information to Patient B prior to excising the lesion on her face in that he: (a) failed to explain the nature of the lesion; (b) failed to explain the procedure; (c) failed to discuss the option of referral to a specialist; (d) failed to explain the risks of the procedure and possible sequelae 3. The Practitioner provided inadequate post-operative care to Patient B in that he: (a) failed to discuss adequately her pathology results with her; and (b) failed to adequately explain the need for further surgery . 4. The Practitioner failed to maintain adequate and legible medical records in relation to Patient B. There is no dispute about the law applicable in these proceedings and it is convenient to adopt the summary provided in counsel for the complainant's written submissions: