Suppression Order about Awful Doctor's ID

Posted on August 3, 2009 by Julian Johnson

It was interesting to read the Sunday Times newspaper's, front page article a week ago in relation to the unnamed obstetrician/ gynaecologist recently struck off from practise in Western Australia. 

I was particularly interested to read the newspapers' editorial column concerning their strong view that the ongoing suppression order, prohibiting publication of the particular Doctors details, was inappropriate. 

There is a clear public interest in the broader community being made aware of the identity of the relevant practitioner (or other doctors in such cases).  This has 2 primary aspects:

  • an entitlement on the part of former and prospective patients to be aware of the conduct of this practitioner.
  • as a strong deterrent against similar conduct by other health professionals (the “shame” factor) 

Clearly from the report there were 2 factors tempering this, in this particular case.  These no doubt lead to the relevant suppression order being made by Judge Chaney:

1. Firstly, it is clear that though doubts may exist concerning such opinions, there was evidence before the Tribunal that the relevant Doctor was psychiatric fragile and at some risk of suicide or self harm in the event that his name was published. 

As no doubt emphasised by his representative before the Tribunal, the potential for such harm if the suppression order was lifted would seem a very powerful consideration indeed.

2. Secondly, it is clearly the fact that the relevant Doctor is no longer practising in Western Australia or elsewhere in Australia. As such, there is no necessary concern for the Tribunal as to potential harm to future patients coming under his care. 

There is also some suggestion that former patients of the practitioner had been informed of the allegations brought which further ameliorates this consideration.  

In these circumstances, I can well understand Judge Chaney’s conclusions, unpopular though they may be. Certainly though, it would be hoped that once "risk" to the Doctor’s health has reduced, his details will be released.  

Tags: , , , , , ,

Why Early Settlement Still Remains a Good Idea (only)

Posted on June 17, 2009 by Julian Johnson

Musing on a claim that I settled a week or so ago. The matter was settled within 45 minutes, via pre-trial settlement discussions at Court supervised mediation.  The claim concerned complications following a hysterectomy.

The allegations of negligence related to the gynaecologist's failure to discuss alternatives to hysterectomy for control of our client's pre-menopausal heavy periods.  

In the last couple of years, this has been our most common type of claim - hysterectomy remains a medical procedure with a relatively high frequency of serious complication.  These days there are a whole range of conservative alternatives to seek to treat heavy bleeding type symptoms for women. 

The settlement was a good result for the client in what was an indefensible case.
 
I was reflecting however on how we had written to the relevant medical insurer 12 months ago, before any court proceedings were commenced, suggesting early settlement discussion, because of the claim's relatively modest size (<$50,000 - thankfully our client made a good recovery after a fairly torrid initial post-surgery period) and the strength of the negligence allegations.
 
I can say with certainty that if such approach had been pursued by the insurer, the claim could have been resolved on precisely the terms negotiated this week, at that time.
 
The benefits of this are clear. A saving of legal costs for both sides (ultimately largely borne by the insurer), saving of Court resources on the dispute and the therapeutic advantages for my client of any earlier resolution, without the fight.
 

This is clearly a problem being grappled with internationally.

 

Tags: , ,