The Snitch: Doctor who inherited $24m from dying patient guilty of unprofessional conduct

If you were set to inherit $24 million, would you care if you got pinged for professional misconduct? And who’s public statements have aged really badly? The Snitch is here.

Dr Peter Alexakis has won a legal battle to keep a $24m inheritance. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

The Strathfield doctor who was left $24 million by one of his patients has been found guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Dr Peter Alexakis will face an upcoming hearing before the Health Care Complaints Commission to learn of his professional fate, with a date yet to be set.

Dr Alexakis won a legal battle in the NSW Supreme Court in May after one of his patients changed his will months before dying and left the medico 90 per cent of his $27 million fortune.

The case had been taken by the other beneficiaries of the will who had their stakes in the massive estate reduced.

Separate from that case, the HCCC took action against Dr Alexakis, alleging he crossed several professional boundaries – like visiting him about 10 times a week – in his dealings with the patient, whose identity was suppressed by the medical tribunal.

Dr Peter Alexakis leaving his medical centre practice at Strathfield. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

But the health regulator was only successful in proving two out of nine grounds of unsatisfactory professional conduct against Dr Alexakis.

One was that Dr Alexakis “failed to observe proper professional boundaries” with the patient’s medical specialists at Concord Hospital and RPA.

This included calling the medical officers and advocating for the wealthy patient to be allowed to return to his home and calling another to complain that she was taking too long to discharge the patient.

The other ground of unsatisfactory professional conduct that was proved against Dr Alexakis was that he billed Medicare for “long consultations with the man” that were “not justified given the low level of clinical complexity”.

The commission failed on grounds relating to visiting the patient 92 times between June 25 2017 and October 5, 2017.

However, the tribunal members noted the number of visits was excessive and could have been dialled back to a weekly check up.

Also not made out was a ground relating to Dr Alexakis arranging for the patient to use a solicitor recommended by the doctor to rewrite the man’s will.

“As a matter of practical reality … one of the reasons why patients ask professionals for referrals to medical and other trades or professional people is because of the trust and confidence they have in those professionals to make referrals or recommendations which they believe will be in the best interests of the patient,” the Tribunals’ four member panel ruled.

Dr Alexakis admitted to and was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for inappropriately prescribing drugs to a separate patient.

NOT BEATING THE DRUM ANYMORE

Do you know what’s aged really badly?

Or aged really well, depending on how you interpret these things.

What Snitch is talking about are comments made by barrister Steven Whybrow SC in 2018 about then incoming ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC.

Cast your mind back to December of that year … it was a happier time – at least for Mr Drumgold.

He had been triumphantly announced as the ACT’s new DPP, completing his rise from a former postie from Mount Druitt to the Australian capital’s top prosecutor.
Mr Whybrow was the president of the ACT Bar Association at the time and gave this glowing appraisal of Mr Drumgold.

Shane Drumgold.

Steven Whybrow.

‘It is pleasing to see such a significant appointment made from within the ACT Legal community,” Mr Whybrow said in his publicly released statement.

“I am confident Mr Drumgold will provide the leadership and inspiration for all his prosecutors to discharge their duties with diligence, fairness and fearlessness.”

Flash forward five years and Mr Whybrow is walking those comments right back.

You will of course remember that the pair faced off as opposing barristers in the Bruce Lehrmann trial, where he was accused of raping then fellow Liberal Party staffer Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.

Lehrmann pleaded not guilty and has always maintained his innocence.

The trial was aborted after juror misconduct and the charge was dropped.

Mr Drumgold has now found himself in the spotlight for his conduct during the trial and some have questioned whether he may lose his job.

During an inquiry into the trial (which was called for by Mr Drumgold), the top prosecutor was accused of misleading the court and grilled over his conduct during the case.

He even gave a speech outside the court after the trial was abandoned, saying he believed there was a chance of convicting Mr Lehrmann.

This has resulted in Mr Whybrow — who represented Mr Lehrmann in the trial — now giving a public denouncement of Mr Drumgold.

Giving evidence at the inquiry in May, Mr Whybrow accused Mr Drumgold of taking an unnecessary “pejorative stab” at his client and abandoning impartiality to align himself with Ms Higgins, instead of doing what he is supposed to do, which is apply the law and serve the interests of the justice system.

The inquiry also heard that Mr Whybrow told another lawyer that the decision on whether the trial should be run a second time should have been taken out of Mr Drumgold’s hands.

Mr Whybrow told the inquiry that Mr Drumgold called him later that day seeking to clarify his comments.

“I was quite short with him,” Mr Whybrow told the inquiry. “I told him it was none of his business and hung up.”