Dr Dallas seeks to have case reheard

Press, 23 June 1978, Page 4

Dr Dallas seeks to have case reheard

— By

KEN COATES

Dr Barry Dallas, the Grevmouth doctor fined for seeing too many patients, will seek a rehearing of his case by the Medical Association's disciplinary committee. He has instructed his legal adviser to apply to the association on the grounds that some evidence was incomplete or misleading as the result of the non-appearance of his only witness. Dr J. S. Roxburgh, the Medical Officer of Health for Nelson. Dr Dallas emphasised that he was not seeking an appeal. He said he had told the disciplinary committee before the hearing that the only witness he intended to call was the medical officer, but he did not appear. Commenting on a report that he might move to Australia, Dr Dallas said he did have such a plan, but it would be only for a holidav. The idea was, when he formed a partnership with two other doctors, that each take a period off a year and work as a locum in Australia during part of that time. But he had no immediate plans, said Dr Dallas, as one of his partners was still away

|on an obstetrics course. Commenting on the peti- • tion being organised protest- » ing at the action of the Medit cal Association's disciplinary ! committee Dr Dallas said - people should concentrate this on the need for medical I staffing on the West Coast. One other doctor was i brought before the disciplinary committee for seeing too ■ many patients — a Sri ■ Lankan practitioner working . in an Auckland suburb, who also had a part-time hospital job There is no evidence to suggest the Dr Dallas case is indicative of a national prob- , lem of doctors in remote areas being forced to see too many patients because of a doctor shortage. Dr Dallas said he knew of no parallel case. Nowhere in New Zealand was a general practitioner called on to act as anaesthetist at a base hos. pital two days a week, he said. “I was seeing more than 100 patients daily on Mondays. Wednesdays and Fridays because I was working at the hospital on Tuesdays and Thursdays when I could see very few, sometimes none,” he said.

The Health Department - confirms that it regularly in- - vestigates doctors earning a . high income from the Social / Security system. But it says j the reasons can vary. . These include the nature I of patients seen as well as the number, the kind of practice they have and how ’ hard they work. The Social Security fee for 1 children is $4.50, for peni sioners (those receiving all I types of pension), $3 and 1 other patients, $1.25. I In addition, a doctor can make his oyvn charge direct to the patient. ; A doctor whose patients are predominantly children * and elderly people will earn • more from Social Security fees than one yvho sees the same number of ordinary patients. A Health Department spokesman said high earnings from Social Security depended on the nature of the practice. It could relate to the way facilities were organised, or the number of children seen. It was not necessarily a factor applying only to rural areas or small towns. He said in most cases of higher-than-usual earnings from Social Security local inquiries by a medical officer of health revealed a reasonable explanation. A doctor had a perfect right to earn from the State fund, but it was the duty of thr department to protect! the patient and the public ini terms of the quality of ser-j vice given. I