Professional Misconduct

Keith Caladine

Address: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Sex: Male
Occupation: Doctor
Date: 5 June 2006


Dr Keith Caladine was reprimanded on 5 June 2006 by a Medical Tribunal.

Pursuant to the Medical Practice Act 1992 (the Act), the Tribunal enquired into two complaints of the Acting Commissioner, Health Care Complaints Commission, dated 4 August 2004, concerning the professional conduct of Dr Keith Caladine (the practitioner). The inquiry was conducted on 27 and 28 February, 1 March and 11 April 2006.

The complaints against the practitioner, being a medical practitioner registered under the Act, were:

1. That the practitioner suffered from an impairment; and

2. That the practitioner had been guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of ss 36 and 37 of the Act in that he demonstrated a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care in the practice of medicine or had engaged in unethical or improper conduct relating to the practice of medicine.

The full terms of the complaints and of the particulars provided in support of them, as amended at the commencement of the hearing, are set out in Appendix A to these Reasons.

The particulars of the complaints fell into the following categories:

1. The practitioner's mental condition.

2. The practitioner's self administration of medication.

3. The detrimental affect of the practitioner's mental condition on his capacity to practise medicine as demonstrated by communications with his patients, described in the particulars as insensitive, rude, inappropriate, sexual, agitated and rambling.

4. The failure to keep adequate records of treatment, in particular, treatment of patients with Schedule 8 narcotics and benzodiazepines.

5. The inappropriate prescription of Schedule 8 narcotics and benzodiazepines to certain patients who were on a methadone programme.

The orders made by the Tribunal were;

1. The Tribunal finds that Complaint 1 is proved. The Tribunal finds that the practitioner suffers from an impairment.

2. The Tribunal finds that Complaint 2 is not proved;

3. The Tribunal orders that the registration of the practitioner as a medical practitioner in New South Wales pursuant to the Medical Practice Act 1992, be subject to the conditions;

4. The practitioner is to pay the Complainant's costs of the proceedings