Doctor fined for A.C.C. abuse

Press, 6 September 1989, Page 13

Doctor fined for A.C.C. abuse

PA Wellington An Auckland doctor has been reprimanded and fined for granting Accident Compensation Corporation certificates over two years saying a man was unfit for work when he had been working almost the whole time. A recent hearing of the Auckland division of the medical practitioners' disciplinary committee found the doctor had mislead the Accident Compensation Corporation, failed to properly examine the patient and failed to refer the man for a specialist’s report. The committee’s chairman, Dr Stuart Brown, said the committee judged the doctor’s conduct unbecoming, censured him and fined him $2OOO. “The committee expressed grave disquiet over the manner in which the doctor handled the problem.” The corporation paid out about $24,000 in compensation to the patient during the two years, Dr Brown said. Dr Brown would not give the doctor’s name because the G.P. had appealed to the medical practitioners’ disciplinary

committee over the Auckland division’s decision.

The patient, a laundryman, had first visited the doctor in question in March, 1986, and was diagnosed to have a back strain and unfit to work, Dr Brown said.

He said the patient visited the doctor regularly in the next two years and the doctor issued “a couple of dozen certificates” to the Accident Compensation Corporation saying the man was unfit for work. “But it was found that the man had been working and receiving a regular income for all of this time except for the first two weeks.” Dr Brown said after the A.C.C. wrote several letters to the doctor asking him to comment on the case, he wrote back on May 6, 1988, saying the man’s pain was not severe and he could find work of some kind.

“But on May 20 he issued a certificate to say the man could not work. “The committee found that by filling in the Cl 5 certificate on May 20 he did mislead the A.C.C.,” Dr Brown said. He said the committee was concerned by the

notes kept by the doctor, which gave little indication of the man’s history, previous pain or neurological findings.

The doctor’s case came before the disciplinary committee after the A.C.C. had used a private detective to investigate the patient’s A.C.C. claims.

The A.C.C.’s corporate affairs manager, Mr Barry Davis, said that during this investigation doubts arose over the accuracy of the doctor’s medical certificates. Mr Davis said the A.C.C. had begun proceedings to recover the money the patient received. The A.C.C.’s chairman, Mr Colin Beyer, said the corporation had investigated more than 600 cases of suspected fraud since June, 1988, but only a few had involved doctors.

“It’s only a small minority but it could be the tip of the iceberg.” The medical practitioners’ disciplinary committee chairman, Dr Dean Williams, said that in the last 15 years there had been less than one hearing a year over a doctor allegedly abusing the A.C.C. system.