NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Medical Tribunal
CITATION : In Re Dr David John ELLIS [2006] NSWMT 9 TRIBUNAL: Medical Tribunal PARTIES : Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Dr David John Ellis (Respondent) FILE NUMBER(S) : 40002 of 2006 CORAM: Puckeridge, QC DCJ - Kendrick, Dr J - - CATCHWORDS: Professional Misconduct LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: DATE OF JUDGMENT: 7 September 2006 ORDERS:
JUDGMENT:
REASONS FOR DETERMINATION
The Tribunal enquired into a complaint by the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] against Dr David Ellis. The complaint dated 13th December 2005 claimed that Dr Ellis has been guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and/or professional misconduct in that he has:- 1. 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; and/or
2. Engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice of medicine.
PARTICULARS
1 At all relevant times the practitioner was a general practitioner practising in Ulladulla, New South Wales.
2 Between about January 1993 and September 2002 the practitioner treated a female patient, 'patient A' and her children. Between about September 1994 and December 2002 patient A worked for the practitioner as a Medical Receptionist. (i) From about 1995 to 1998 the practitioner engaged in a personal and sexual relationship with patient A which included sexual intercourse.
(ii) During the personal and sexual relationship the practitioner failed to refer patient A to another general practitioner.
(iii) The practitioner failed to keep proper and adequate records of his medical treatment of patient A.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate