9.30pm
Health and Disabilities Commissioner Ron Paterson is considering another look at patient files involving Tauranga general surgeon Ian Breeze.
Mr Paterson said yesterday his office had received six complaints about Mr Breeze since August 1999.
The most serious -- about the 1999 death of Tauranga engineer Lionel Crowley from complications after a
botched bowel operation -- resulted in disciplinary action.
On December 16, 1999, Mr Crowley was admitted to Norfolk Southern Cross Hospital for removal of a rectal tumour.
Within hours, he developed a severe infection after a failed operation allowed faeces to leak into his abdomen.
Despite treatment with antibiotics and a further operation at Tauranga Hospital's intensive care unit, Mr Crowley died of multiple organ failure on December 20.
In August this year, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found Mr Breeze guilty of professional misconduct, fined him $12,500 and ordered him to pay $38,000 in costs.
The tribunal ruled Mr Breeze failed to adequately assess Mr Crowley when he developed symptoms of a life-threatening post-operative infection.
He also failed to transfer his patient's care to an appropriately qualified surgeon in a timely manner, the tribunal said.
In July 2002 -- after a review by the Medical Council revealed deficiencies in Mr Breeze's colo-rectal surgery -- the council ordered he undergo an educational programme before returning to practice.
He is now on restricted duties at Tauranga and Norfolk hospitals.
Mr Paterson said he was "looking closely" at reopening two more cases following pressure from families of other patients who died.
Mr Paterson said cases were revisited as "a matter of procedure" when complainants were unhappy with a decision, or were able to provide relevant new information.
His initial finding had been that no breach of professional standards had occurred in those cases.
However, ACC had found evidence of medical misadventure in both of the cases. The families had been compensated accordingly.
A third, more recent case, was also under investigation.
The families and other interested parties may have come forward at the time of the tribunal hearing if Mr Breeze had not been granted interim name suppression during the disciplinary proceedings, Mr Paterson said.
"This case is a good example of why there should be a presumption of openness (in medico-legal proceedings) and why doctors should not have interim name suppression."
- BAY OF PLENTY TIMES
