Doctor who blocked ACC cover fined $7500

A freezing works' doctor who refused ACC cover to a meatworker who contracted leptospirosis on the job has been fined $7500 by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and ordered to pay more than $50,000 in costs.

The tribunal said the cost of investigating, prosecuting and hearing the case was more than $143,000 and the doctor found guilty of professional misconduct should pay 35 per cent of that.

But the name of the doctor and the freezing works that employed him are still being kept secret after he lodged an appeal against the tribunal's findings and the penalties imposed.

According to the tribunal, an (unidentified) district court has granted interim name suppression pending the outcome of the appeal.

The case relates to events that occurred four years ago. The charge was laid in 2003, heard over five days last year, with sentencing by the tribunal last month. The doctor failed to accept a hospital diagnosis of leptospirosis in the worker, "Mr A.", despite it being "clear-cut, obvious and classical", the tribunal found.

He failed to recognise the Accident Compensation Corporation requirements for cover for the sick worker. He also refused to provide certification that would have enabled Mr A. to claim compensation and contributed to a climate of confrontation with Mr A. that resulted in unnecessary hardship and stress, possibly prejudicing his recovery.

The case has been cited by trade union leaders as an example of the problems that arise with some companies working under ACC's partnership programme. Large employers in this programme can reduce their ACC levies but take more responsibility for the costs of treatment and earnings-related compensation when staff get sick or injured.

The tribunal, which had granted interim name suppression itself until a fortnight after the end of the case, rejected submissions for continued suppression by counsel who said "Dr S." worked in a highly judgmental community and his practice would be adversely affected by publication of his name.

The tribunal said the community was unlikely to be any different from other similar communities of its kind and size in New Zealand.

It pointed out that Dr S. himself had provided evidence in his submissions that showed his services continued to be required and sought in the community and by the local hospital.

Many of his peers and patients were clearly aware of the charge against him, having provided testimonials that spoke highly of him.

The cost of the investigation and prosecution by the tribunal's complaints assessment committee was $86,731.04, while the tribunal hearing cost $56,438.93.