Doctor granted permanent name suppression
A doctor involved in the treatment of a young man who died of meningococcal disease can keep their name secret forever, a High Court judge has ruled.
In a decision released this month, High Court Judge Paul Davison ruled that publishing the doctor’s name would likely promote unfair media coverage based on anonymous and unsubstantiated claims.
Zachary Gravatt, 22, died on July 8, 2009, hours after being admitted to Auckland City Hospital.
Two years later, Coroner Brandt Shortland found the hospital struggled to cope as a flu epidemic gripped Auckland and said medical staff failed to diagnose Gravatt in a ‘‘timely fashion’’.
The Auckland District Health Board acknowledged that with different treatment, it was possible Gravatt could have been saved. It issued an apology to his family, and the parties reached a financial settlement in 2013.
But three years later, Gravatt’s parents, Lance and Jenny, received an anonymous letter, alleging a ‘‘cover-up’’ at the health board.
In 2018 a second inquest was held by Coroner Morag McDowell.
She looked at what happened and when, whether there were opportunities to have treated Gravatt earlier and whether the absence of a senior doctor, who was eating dinner in Ponsonby at the time, affected Gravatt’s chance of survival.
She found there were no deficiencies in the hospital’s treatment of Gravatt, but denied the application for permanent name suppression.
In June, 11 years after Gravatt’s death, lawyers for the doctor asked the High Court to review the Coroner’s decision to make their name public.
This month, Justice Davison ruled against naming the doctor or revealing the contents of the anonymous letter.
‘‘There is a very high likelihood that there will be unfair media coverage directed ... based on the anonymous and unsubstantiated claims already published in the media. Such media coverage will unfairly damage [the doctor’s] reputation,’’ he ruled.
Justice Davison added the question is not whether there ‘is’ public interest in revealing the doctor’s identity, but whether the ‘‘public interest served by having the information in the public domain outweighs the individual and personal interests of [the doctor] in protecting his professional reputation.