Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal
Director of Proceedings v Dr Robert Morton 1317/Med22/549D (30 October 2025)
The Director of Proceedings filed a charge of professional misconduct against General Practitioner, Dr Robert Morton, in the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The charge comprised five particulars and related to Dr Morton’s prescribing of two highly potent medications (Neotigason and Dermol) to his patient, Ms Cockburn, for her psoriasis (a chronic inflammatory skin condition).
The Tribunal found that Dr Morton prescribed Neotigason (generic name acitretin) without fully informing Ms Cockburn of the risks and without excluding the possibility of pregnancy. Neotigason is a powerful teratogenic oral retinoid that has a very high risk of causing birth abnormalities. This risk can persist until the product has been eliminated completely from the patient’s system, which can take at least two to three years following cessation of the medication. As part of the prescribing process, Dr Morton submitted a required Ministry of Health application for Special Authority to prescribe Neotigason, confirming that he had ruled out pregnancy in Ms Cockburn and had provided her with all the necessary information regarding the risks of treatment with this medication. About four weeks after starting Neotigason, Ms Cockburn discovered she was pregnant. She also discovered the risk of severe foetal defects from taking Neotigason. Ms Cockburn terminated the pregnancy and stopped taking Neotigason. 15 months later she discovered she was pregnant again. Due to the ongoing risk of severe foetal malformation, Ms Cockburn felt she had no choice but to terminate the second pregnancy.
The Tribunal accepted that Dr Morton did give some verbal advice to Ms Cockburn about the risk of Neotigason and the requirement for double contraception. However, he did not follow the clear process required to ensure that the possibility of pregnancy had been excluded prior to the commencement of treatment with Neotigason. Further, he failed to inform Ms Cockburn of the need to use effective contraception without interruption for a period of four weeks before commencing Neotigason and that Neotigason can affect pregnancies for two years after discontinuing it. The Tribunal was satisfied that while Dr Morton did not intend to file a false declaration on the application for Special Authority, he ought to have ensured that the pregnancy risks, as stated expressly on the Special Authority form, were excluded when he submitted the form.
The Tribunal also found that over a five-year period Dr Morton gave Ms Cockburn repeat and excessive prescriptions of Dermol, a potent steroid-based medication, without informing her adequately of the risks associated with heavy and long-term use and despite warnings from others involved in Ms Cockburn’s care to be cautious. These cautions included letters from a dermatologist advising that it was essential she never use Dermol again. The Tribunal was satisfied Dr Morton failed to take notice and act on these clear warnings that Ms Cockburn should stop using the Dermol ointment. Ms Cockburn developed Cushing’s Syndrome, a group of symptoms caused by long-term exposure to corticosteroids such as Dermol.
Dr Morton accepted and apologised for his clinical errors in prescribing Neotigason and Dermol to Ms Cockburn. He did not admit that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The Tribunal found that in relation to the prescribing of Neotigason and Dermol, Dr Morton was negligent (save for sub-particulars 1(a) and 3(a) of the charge) and sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary sanction. In relation to Dr Morton’s application for Special Authority to prescribe Neotigason and his prescribing excessive amounts of Dermol despite warnings from colleagues (particulars 2 and 5 of the charge), the Tribunal found this conduct was also likely to bring discredit to the medical profession. To signal to the profession and the wider public the serious nature of the professional misconduct, the Tribunal censured Dr Morton, required him to notify his current employer and the Royal New Zealand College of GPs of the Tribunal’s findings, issued a fine of $3,000, and ordered him to make a 40% contribution to the total hearing costs. The Tribunal declined Dr Morton’s application for name suppression. Dr Morton appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court against the Tribunal's publication order. Dr Morton then appealed the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal but abandoned his appeal prior to the hearing.
A link to the Tribunal’s decision can be found at: