Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Med19/457P
Practitioner: Dr E
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Drugs - inappropriate administration and/or misuse of (Established)

Assessment - inadequate/inappropriate

Records - inadequate/inappropriate

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Interim order for non-publication of the name of the practitioner and any identifying details.

Permanent orders of name suppression for the practitioner, his wife, the practice at which he worked and the dispensing pharmacies.



Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Interim order for suppression of the names of the two patients and any identifying details.

Permanent orders of name suppression and any identifying details of the two patients referred to in the Charge.


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 1079Med19457P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


On 29 January 2020, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee against Dr E, medical practitioner (the Doctor).

The particulars of the charge alleged the Doctor:

  1. Prescribed medicines to two patients [Patient A and Patient B] contrary to the requirements of the Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion Act 1977 (the CSA Act);
  2. Prescribed medicines contrary to the Medical Council’s Statement on Good Prescribing Practice; and/or contrary to accepted medical practice;
  3. Failed to ensure that he had adequate knowledge of the medications or requirements of the CSA Act;
  4. Failed to undertake appropriate clinical assessments;
  5. Failed to keep clear or accurate records, and,
  6. In respect of Patient B he knew or ought to have known, that the dosage of misoprostol exceeded the recommended dose and/or prescribed misoprostol in combination with Primolut, an inappropriate treatment for termination of pregnancy.


The Doctor accepted that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct and the hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Summary of Facts.


The Tribunal found the facts alleged in the Particulars relating to both Patient A and Patient B were established. The Tribunal found the Doctor’s conduct amounted to as negligence and malpractice and was conduct which brought discredit to the Doctor’s profession.  There was a significant breach of standards and his misconduct warranted disciplinary sanction

The Tribunal found that the Doctor’s notes failed to meet basic standards of medical record keeping.  He did not document details of the patients presenting complaint, any examination findings, diagnosis or management plans.  This failure amounted to negligence and brought discredit to the Doctor’s profession.


The Tribunal:

  • censured the Doctor;
  • fined the Doctor $7,500;
  • imposed five conditions on the Doctor's practice which will apply for a period of three years which will apply if he recommences practice.
  • ordered the Doctor pay costs of $22,500;
  • made permanent orders of suppression and
  • directed publication of the decision.