Thread: Doctor penalised for failing to assist after car crash

Sadly, the moral of the story seems to be if in doubt do not report the accident.

That does not help the injured, but keeps our scared good samaritan out of goal with plausible deniability.

Good job judges... again...

I thought something about this didnt seem right...

A google search found this...

Doctor fined for dangerous driving causing death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

She contributed to the accident! (allegedly) Did a runner for selfish reasons (allegedly), not the other reasons mentioned here

Doctor fined for dangerous driving causing death

Posted 14 Dec 2005, 7:19pmWed 14 Dec 2005, 7:19pm



Map: Karratha 6714


A doctor from Karratha, in Western Australia's north-west, has been found guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

In 2002, 55-year-old radiologist Leila Dekker failed to give way to an oncoming vehicle on the North West Coastal Highway.

The driver of the approaching vehicle swerved to avoid being hit, but the car rolled several times, killing a female passenger.

Dekker drove off without stopping to assist or calling for help.

In the Karratha District Court, Dekker was fined $10,000 and had her driver's licence suspended for two years.



Passenger 'pleaded' for crash doc to stop

9 December, 2013 Antonio Bradley 11 comments


Passenger 'pleaded' for crash doc to stop
The "terrified" doctor who drove away from a fatal car crash in remote WA without rendering assistance was accompanied by a passenger who allegedly pleaded...


While Dr Dekker did not see the other vehicle subsequently go over an embankment and roll over, she heard the noise of the impact and her passenger thought the vehicle may have rolled over. Her passenger suggested that they go and check what had happened. Dr Dekker refused to do so but agreed to drive to the police station and report the event. Dr Dekker did not have a mobile phone with her or first aid equipment or a torch.

The matter came before the WA Tribunal eleven years after the accident, which occurred in April 2002. A passenger in the other vehicle was thrown out of the vehicle and died at the scene. Dr Dekker was convicted of dangerous driving causing death at a District Court trial in 2005. She was fined $10,000 and disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Dr Dekker subsequently appealed, and in a 2:1 decision in 2009, her appeal was successful and her conviction quashed by the WA Supreme Court of Appeal [2]. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence in the District Court trial established that the other driver had lost control of his vehicle before Dr Dekker entered the T intersection. While Dr Dekker may not have taken reasonable care when entering the intersection, her driving did not cause his vehicle to leave the road and roll over and hence the conviction could not stand.

The Tribunal considered her statement to the Police a few days after the accident, her evidence in the subsequent trial and appeal and her statement and evidence to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal had to consider whether Dr Dekker’s conduct was sufficiently connected to the profession of medicine and if it was, whether the conduct was improper or infamous.

Dr Dekker and her counsel argued that she was shocked and scared by the near miss, it was dark, she had no torch, first aid equipment or mobile phone, there had been violent incidents in the region and since the police station was nearby the most expedient thing to do was to go to the police.

The Medical Board’s counsel argued that Dr Dekker knew that an accident had probably occurred with the prospect that persons were injured, she could have used her car headlights to illuminate the area where the noise had come from and at least made a preliminary assessment of who had been injured and the extent of the injuries. The Board argued further that this would be a reasonable expectation of the medical profession and that Dr Dekker’s failure to do so would be regarded by her peers as being improper or infamous.

The Tribunal concluded that there was a sufficient connection between the event and the profession of medicine, even though the event did not occur as part of Dr Dekker’s medical practice. In the Tribunal’s view, “saving human life and healing sick and injured people is a core purpose and ethic of the medical profession”.

In considering her conduct, the Tribunal determined that even though Dr Dekker had reported the event to the police, her failure to stop, make an assessment and render assistance when she was physically able to do so and had the knowledge and skills to do so, would “reasonably be regarded as improper by medical practitioners of good repute and competency”. The Tribunal observed that had Dr Dekker not promptly reported the event to the police, her conduct would have constituted infamous conduct.

After making its finding, the Tribunal determined to hold a further hearing in February 2014 to consider the appropriate penalty and any orders as to costs.
- See more at: http://www.holmanwebb.com.au/publica....uWRQ60Y8.dpuf

The content on this site is available to Australian Registered Health Practitioners only.
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/n...doctor-to-stop

9 The practitioner was cross*examined by Mr PD Quinlan SC, who appeared with Ms J Tavelli on behalf of the Board. Under cross*examination, the practitioner conceded that her statements in relation to alcoholism, drug use and violent behaviour in Roebourne at paragraphs 14, 22, 23 and 24 of her witness statement refer to the 'general conditions of the area at the time' (T:10.6, 22.10.13), but she '[wasn't] thinking of any of those things' (T:10.9, 22.10.13) when she made the decision to leave the scene of the 'near miss' incident. The practitioner also conceded that her statements in relation to alcoholism, drug use and violent behaviour in Roebourne have 'nothing to do with the incident' (T:11.5, 22.10.13).
10 The practitioner also gave evidence under cross*examination that, after the 'near miss' incident, she was 'not thinking at all' (T:10.9, 22.10.13) and that:

… At that time, I was [in] a state of shock as well, I think. Yes. Yes. I didn't know what was happening around me. I had no idea what was happening. I was in absolute shock from the moment of the near*miss, just before the near*miss, … (T:12.4, 22.10.13).and
You could just as easily have checked on the people in the other car, couldn't you?***I don't think so. In that moment of time * in that specific moment of my life * special moment of my life * two moments of my life, I freaked out completely. I was almost hit by a car and killed recently then I found myself in the edge of the embankment, then I thought I was going down the hill. (T:21.9*22.1, 22.10.13).11 Similarly, in re*examination, the practitioner said that:
… I think I was in a state of shock from the moment that I saw the headlights in collision course with my car … to the moment that I found myself at police station. And after as well, outside of police station, shaking. Took a long time, yes. (T:23.6*.7, 22.10.13).

(Page 10)


12 The practitioner was also cross*examined and re*examined in relation to sworn evidence that she gave on 6 December 2005 in a trial in the District Court of Western Australia concerning the 'near miss' incident. Under cross*examination in this proceeding, the practitioner agreed with the proposition that 'the evidence you gave back in 2005 is going to be a better record of what you remembered than what you can tell us now?' (T:21.5, 22.10.13). This is hardly surprising, given that her evidence at the District Court trial was given three and a half years after the 'near miss' incident, whereas her evidence in this proceeding was given 11 and a half years after the incident. At the commencement of her cross*examination in this proceeding, the practitioner said that her witness statement contains '… my faint recollection of events' (T:7.8, 22.10.13).
13 In her evidence in the District Court trial, the practitioner said on a number of occasions that, during and after the 'near miss' incident, she was in a 'state of shock'. The practitioner also gave the following evidence in chief in the District Court trial as to what happened after her car came to a halt on the embankment:

What did you do then?***I was petrified, petrified, and then I heard a noise. I was not sure about the noise, so I looked to the side and asked the passenger, "What's this noise about?" and then he looked at me and said, "I think they roll it," and I look in the front again and I couldn't see even the top of the bush and they * I turn again to him and I said, "What are we going to do now?" I was talking about direction of the car, and he said, "I think it's better to go to the police," and then I turned to the front again and I put the car in rear***
In reverse?***In reverse, the car went back and I drove to the police.

14 Under cross*examination in the District Court trial, the practitioner confirmed that her passenger had told her 'I think they roll it' in relation to the second vehicle.
15 Under cross*examination in the District Court trial, the practitioner agreed that in a police record of interview conducted five days after the 'near miss' incident she said the following in response to the question 'Why did you drive away without stopping to offer assistance?':

As a medical doctor, I know there would be a bad injury and I know it was a waste of time so I go to police so they can get help[.]
16 When asked by the cross*examiner in the District Court trial whether that statement was 'the truth', the practitioner said:

(Page 11)
I describe that, I said that and probably that description of my instinct as a doctor.
17 When she was asked in cross*examination in this proceeding about her statement in the police record of interview that 'As a medical doctor, I know there would be a bad injury and I know it was a waste of time so I go to police so they can get help', the practitioner said 'I don't remember that anymore' (T:18.8, 22.10.13). However, as the practitioner agreed in her sworn evidence in 2005 that she made that statement only five days after the incident and said that it was a description of her 'instinct as a doctor', we feel an actual persuasion based on clear and cogent evidence, in accordance with the Briginshaw approach (see legal framework and principles below), and find that the practitioner told the police five days after the 'near miss' incident that she knew that there would be a bad injury and that that was her instinctive understanding as a medical practitioner at the time she left the scene of the 'near miss' incident on 27 April 2002.
18 Furthermore, given that the practitioner gave sworn evidence in examination in chief and in cross*examination in the District Court trial that her passenger told her 'I think they roll it' after she heard the noise while on the embankment, we feel an actual persuasion based on clear and cogent evidence, in accordance with the Briginshaw approach, and find that the practitioner was aware that the second vehicle may have rolled over when she left the scene of the 'near miss' incident.

... a bit of dishonesty evidenced by the change of story and brain dead deduction that injury would have been instantly terminal, so best go straight to the clean up crew, no assessment, even by her male passenger, bloody disgraceful of both of them, I wonder what their relationship was/is and what transpired leading to the passenger eventually submitting a statement for her appeal...

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/S...n=openDocument

40 In this case, the practitioner was aware that a motor vehicle accident had or may have occurred and that people involved had or may have been injured, because the second vehicle was travelling at an excessive speed and narrowly missed her vehicle, she heard noise of impact and was told by her passenger that 'I think they roll it', and, as a medical practitioner, she instinctively knew that there would be 'a bad injury' as a consequence. The practitioner was in the vicinity and was physically able to assist. Although it was dark and the practitioner did not have a torch with her, there is no reason why she could not have used the headlights of her vehicle to illuminate the scene. Although the practitioner did not have any medical equipment or a first aid kit with her, her knowledge and skills


(Page 18)
as a medical practitioner would have enabled her to make an assessment of the condition of the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle and render first aid to them if necessary.
41 Furthermore, the fact that she did not own or have a mobile telephone with her at the time and the fact that the police station to which she drove to report the incident was only a short distance away did not discharge her professional duty to make an assessment and render assistance at the scene. Notwithstanding these circumstances, the practitioner's conduct would reasonably be regarded as improper by professional colleagues of good repute and competency. In order to save life, first aid may need to be rendered immediately. Any delay in providing first aid after a traumatic injury, even a delay of a short period, could result in death. Furthermore, even if it were necessary to leave the scene of the accident to call for assistance from emergency services, it was necessary for the practitioner to determine the number of persons who were injured, to assess their injuries and needs to the greatest extent possible in the circumstances, and to see if they were trapped, in order for appropriate emergency services to be dispatched.
42 The practitioner gave evidence that shortly after the 'near miss', her passenger 'suggested that we go to the police'. Mr Morrissey's written submission for the practitioner said that the passenger 'actively encouraged [the practitioner] that the best course of action would be to attend at the nearby Roebourne police station'. Whether the passenger actively encouraged her or merely suggested that they go to the police station, it could not possibly have the effect that the practitioner's conduct would not reasonably be regarded as improper by professional colleagues of good repute and competency. Given that saving of human life and healing sickness and injury is at the core of the profession of medicine, a medical practitioner must adhere to their duty irrespective of what others may suggest or encourage.

43 The fact that the practitioner was 'in a state of shock', 'petrified' and 'freaked out' after the 'near miss' incident is hardly surprising in a case where a person is involved in an accident or in a near*miss situation. However, the practitioner was not simply 'a shocked and distraught woman', to quote Mr Morrissey's submission, but rather a member of the medical profession who had gone through a no doubt frightening near*miss experience, but was thankfully physically unharmed, and was aware that another vehicle had or may have crashed in her vicinity. Because she is a member of the medical profession, and therefore a person with medical knowledge and skills to save life and to heal the sick and


(Page 19)
injured in the community, her professional duty required that she overcome or at least put aside the shock and provide assistance to the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle. Although the practitioner's 'shock' may be relevant in relation to penalty, it does not have the consequence that her conduct would reasonably be regarded as anything other than improper (or, had she not immediately reported the matter to police or other emergency services, disgraceful or dishonourable) by professional colleagues of good repute and competency.
44 Finally, as noted earlier, the practitioner did not give evidence that 'violence towards women was a common occurrence and this was known to [her]', as suggested in Mr Morrissey's submission. The practitioner did refer to alcoholism, drug use and violent behaviour as a common occurrence in the locality. However, she conceded in cross*examination that these were not matters about which she was thinking at the time when she made the decision to leave the scene after the 'near miss' incident.
45 In any case, even if the practitioner had been thinking of these issues, they would not have absolved her from her professional obligation to make an assessment and render assistance to the occupants of the second vehicle. Furthermore, contrary to Mr Morrissey's submission, it was not reasonable to expect that the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle 'would have been agitated and might have posed a risk to the [practitioner's] personal safety', given that the practitioner was aware, by instinct as a doctor, that they had suffered 'a bad injury'. Of course, if the occupant or occupants of the second vehicle had threatened violence towards the practitioner, the practitioner would have discharged her professional obligation and could have driven to the police station.

Thanks for looking into that, Greatsouthernland.

So many Possible outcomes, the deceased was thrown from vehicle. So possibly not wearing seat belt. Common in that area. Does that make a difference more legal questions than moral behavior.

A different slant on the picture now, but as I said much earlier,

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

... One wonders however, if there's any other information that we're not being told?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

A different slant on the picture now, but as I said much earlier,

Well played.

Originally Posted by Greatsouthernland

Well played.

I still say that you don't walk into danger.

Personally, as a trauma nurse with disaster training, I would attend the scene and assess the patients using the SAFE Approach DRABCDEFG, but I wouldn't walk into extreme danger (as I assess it) and would see that other resources are en-route. But I don't see that it is necessarily correct to sanction a medico or other health professional if their assessment was reasonable at the time.

In the radiologist's case we weren't originally told about the male passenger which puts a whole different slant on it.