Charge

A panel of the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal convened in Auckland on 13 and 15 June 2022 to hear a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) aqppointed by the Medical Council of New Zealand against Dr Judith Gill, medical practitioner of Auckland (The Doctor). The Doctordid not atted the hearing nor was she represented. The hearing was completed in three days rather than the two weeks initially set down, as the Charge was not defended.

The Charge against the Doctor relates to patient funding claims to ProCare of some $420,652, made by the Doctor through her medical practices between 2003 and 2011, which it is alleged she was not entitled to make. 

The charge alleged that:

Between 2003 and 2011, while the sole director and shareholder of Queen Street Healthcare (Auckland Metro Doctors) Limited and The Travel Clinics (Travelcare) New Zealand Ltd (collectively AMDT), the Doctor submitted age/sex registers of patients (the Registers) to ProCare (an Auckland Primary Health Organisation (PHO)) in circumstances where:

1. 1. 1. AMDT received funding from ProCare on the basis of the number of patients included on the Registers and submitted quarterly to ProCare;

1. 1. 2. the submitted Registers contained details of 2618 patients who were not eligible for and / or entitled to capitation based funding

1. 1. 3. as a result of submitting the Registers, which included ineligible and/or non-entitled patients, to ProCare, the doctor and/or AMDT received an additional $420,652.31 of funding.

Background

From 2000 to 2011, the Doctor owned and operated as a doctor at Queen Street Healthcare (Auckland Metro Doctors) Limited and The Travel Clinics (Travel Care) New Zealand Limited (together AMDT).  The Doctor has not held a practising certificate since March 2017 and has stated she has no intention to return to medical practice.

The Doctor was the subject of criminal charges laid by Police arising from a complaint by the Ministry of Health in 2015.  The charges were later withdrawn on the basis of a confidential settlement between the Ministry of Health and the doctor.  No criminal charges were ever pursued.

The Doctor’s medical practice, AMDT, received funding from ProCare for patients.  AMDT (and other primary healthcare providers in the ProCare network) would provide registers listing all the eligible and entitled patients at the practice. ProCare would then provide the registers to the Ministry of Health, who would pay the Auckland District Health Board (ADHB). The ADHB would then distribute public funding for entitled and eligible patients to ProCare. This arrangement was formalised between the ADHB and ProCare in a contract and subsequent variations, and between ProCare and the Doctor in a separate contract.

Finding

The Tribunal found the charge established.

The Tribunal was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Doctor submitted patient registers which contained 2,618 ineligible and/or unentitled patients and obtained funding of $420,652.31 for those patients when she ought to have known, that they were ineligible and/or unentitled and that it would result in her obtaining funding that she was not entitled to.

The Tribunal confirmed that each of the Particulars 1 to 4 are established.  The Doctor’s conduct as alleged amounts to professional misconduct that separately and cumulatively amounts to malpractice under s100(1)(a) of the Act and is conduct that has brought or is likely to bring discredit to the medical profession under s100(1)(b) of the Act.

The Doctor’s actions while not established as deliberate fell well below the standard expected of a medical practitioner.  Her actions therefore amounted to professional misconduct on the basis that they were grossly negligent and in circumstances where she ought to have known that she was not entitled to the funding of these patients.

Penalty

The Tribunal:

• Censured the Doctor;
• Cancelled the Doctor’s registration;
• Ordered payment of $254,258.58 amounting to 75% of the costs of and incidental to the hearing.

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.