Document

12th July 2006

gcrewdson@yahoo.com

Dr P. Dodwell

C.M.O. HealthQuest

Urgent

Dear Dr Dodwell,

I am writing this letter out of urgent concern about the contents of your correspondence to Dr Corbett dated 4th July 2006 concerning [Confidential].

You should be aware that as C.M.O. of HealthQuest you are not just a doctor but also a public officer as defined under Sec 3 of the ICAC Act 1988. You should also be aware that conduct that is not honest or impartial by a public official and which would also constitute grounds for disciplinary procedures constitutes corrupt conduct as defined under Sections 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act 1988.

In your letter 4 July 2006 to Dr Corbett you refer to 'an episode in 1997 involving complaints' and you attach 'relevant documents'. Those documents include 'report of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (sic, N.S.W. Administrative Decisions Tribunal) 10 May 2002. You caution Dr Corbett that these matters were strongly disputed by [Confidential] and that 'statements surrounding' this matter frequently lack an 'established factual basis'.

Having asserted that this applies 'as much to statements by [Confidential]as to those making allegations against her' you then go on to smear and slander [Confidential] to Dr Corbett with unspecified allegations of your own when you write:

'I have witnessed in recent correspondence from her a tendency either to misrepresent certain facts which are clearly on record or to embellish facts'. You do not provide Dr Corbett with any specific evidence in support of your extremely prejudicial and damaging allegations against [Confidential]. Dr Corbett is not told of any fact that [Confidential]has supposedly misrepresented or embellished. You just state allegations against her with no 'established factual basis'. In other words you repeat the behaviour of those persons who originally made unsubstantiated allegations against [Confidential] in 1997 and your opinion/assessment of [Confidential]has clearly been coloured and influenced by your own reading of this material.

I should also point out to you that the tribunal in the ADT Decision 10 May 2002 explicitly declined to make findings of fact about the allegations against [Confidential] (though required to do so) and accordingly that judgement cannot be used as confirmation of their validity or truthfulness. Furthermore the judgement was withdrawn from publication by the President of the Tribunal, Judge Kevin O'Connor after [Confidential] through her solicitor had provided evidence that the department's witnesses had committed perjury in relation to those allegations and that this material was indeed untruthful. The action of the President of the Tribunal inn then removing this decision from publication is I believe unprecedented and appears to have been taken to avoid having to institute contempt or perjury proceedings against the Department. (The procedure for contempt under the ADT Act is still untested and unclear).

Dr Dodwell, your providing Dr Corbett with this material coupled with your innuendoes and unfounded slurs against [Confidential] is a clear attempt on your part to pressure, influence and prejudice him to make a finding of unfitness against [Confidential].

You have engaged in this attempt to prejudice Dr Corbett's mind against [Confidential] after stating:

'I did ask the Department of education to obtain any performance related records from her file, in the possibility that these might have recorded eye-witness evidence consistent with a form of epilepsy. This did not turn up significant new information from that already on file.'

Dr Dodwell, I am myself familiar with that material and have checked this point with [Confidential].

There is on the 1997 file no reference at all to any alleged problems concerning [Confidential] arising from alleged epilepsy.

Since Dr Corbett's specialist expertise is confined to neurology the question arises - if there is no reference to or evidence about epilepsy or epilepsy related problems in the 1997 allegations why then are you providing this material to Dr Corbett, particularly when you yourself note it is not based on established fact? Again this action is clearly an attempt to influence and colour Dr Corbett's judgement against [Confidential] and is being done because you cannot find any evidence in the files to support any conclusion that [Confidential] conduct of work performance as a teacher has suffered or been affected by epilepsy or presumed epilepsy.

Most significantly (in terms of the legal issues involved) you have stated at the end of your letter:

'Finally, I specifically asked the Department of Education to obtain information regarding her present part time work. There was nothing to indicate dissatisfaction with her current performance.' (Emphasis added).

Given that:

*There is no dissatisfaction with [Confidential] current performance (as a teacher)
*There is no evidence or even allegation on the material you have gathered that [Confidential] work performance has ever been affected by any epileptic condition

There is no lawful ground or reason to continue to prevent [Confidential] from teaching part time in the state school system and there is no necessity to seek any further opinions from Dr Corbett. I state this because you should know it is unlawful to deny employment to a person on the ground solely of a disability or medical condition they are presumed to have or have had in the past whether or not they actually have the disability in question.

In your letter you are aware of the distinction between a person having a disability and a disability affecting work performance when you state:

'The crucial question is whether a combination of such seizures along with any permanent personality changes...is likely to have ongoing deleterious effects on her behaviour in the course of her work.' (emphasis added).

Dr Dodwell as stated before the evidence that you have is that there is 'nothing to indicate dissatisfaction with her current performance'. You also have a finding already made by Dr Corbett that [Confidential] is medically fit to perform her duties. This is consistent with the reports you have also gained about her actual and ongoing work performance.

Given these facts it is disingenuous for you to say to Dr Corbett 'Please read attached material with an open mind, merely looking on it as background information' when that material is not based on fact and is not relevant to Dr Corbett's examination. You acknowledge this when you say 'You may feel that such a question goes beyond your own field of expertise'.

To sum up, Dr Dodwell, in the absence of any evidence of any medical condition adversely affecting [Confidential] work performance as a teacher you are endeavouring to persuade Dr Corbett to change his opinion already made that [Confidential] is fit to work. You are doing so by providing him with unsubstantiated and highly prejudicial material from 1997 coupled with your own prejudicial and unfounded comments on [Confidential] coloured by your own reading of that material. Furthermore this material falls outside his own professional area of expertise and is therefore irrelevant.

Your letter is itself clear evidence that you are biased against [Confidential] and are therefore unfit on this basis to make any judgement about her. Any such judgement would be in breach of the rules of natural justice which govern any exercise of your powers and is a precondition to its validity.

By your actions you are permitting/instructing the Department of Education to unlawfully discriminate against [Confidential] in her employment and are therefore aiding and abetting such conduct under the relevant legislation. Further your conduct as a public official with regard to your attempt to pressure and prejudice Dr Corbett appears to constitute corrupt conduct as defined under Sections 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act.

With regard to the material you have gathered and retain concerning [Confidential] may I remind you that under the Medical Practice Act 1988 and regulations all entries on a medical file must be either records of clinical judgement or statements of fact.

Why then given this legal obligation are you retaining and still using material from 1997 which you yourself admit has no factual basis (and so is in breach of the Medical Practice Act). Further you are governed by the Privacy and Personal Information Act (PIPA) which requires that you can only collect information about a person that is factually correct, relevant and u p to date is being collected for a lawful purpose or excuse and with the subject person's consent. None of the above pre-conditions apply in this case with regard to the 1997 material for reasons stated.

In this regard will you provide [Confidential] immediately with copy of current HealthQuest policy concerning records management and also corruption/reporting corruption.

I am writing this letter also so that if you have any objections to what is stated that you make them to me and not take it out on [Confidential]. She is not the only person who is protesting against HealthQuest practices. To smear your critics personally as you have done in your letter to Dr Corbett rather than answer and respond to the substance of those criticisms is cowardly, unprofessional and demands a full apology to [Confidential].

Please respond urgently.

Yours sincerely

Top of page | Home | Chronology | People & Depts | Current Actions | References | Cartoons | About Us

Disclaimer

Site © Copyright 2005 WBDE