Director of Proceedings v Beer [2025] NZHRRT 48
(22 December 2025)
The Director filed proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal by consent against Dr Beer, a general practitioner (GP), regarding the care Dr Beer provided to the aggrieved person, Mr A.
Mr A, aged in his sixties at the time, had several health conditions and a family history of prostate cancer. Dr Beer was a relative of Mr A. In 2011, Dr Beer discussed routine screening with Mr A and recommended he complete a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. The test was not completed, and no further test was ordered until 2017.
On 3 August 2017 Mr A attended his wife’s appointment with her and shared some concerning symptoms of his own. Dr Beer referred Mr A to get blood tests. These tests were primarily to assess Mr A’s cardiovascular risk but also included a PSA test. Dr Beer did not provide full information about the PSA test at this time. Mr A completed the blood tests the same day, and Dr Beer received the results the following day. Mr A’s PSA test result was abnormal. Medical centre policies required Dr Beer to ensure timely communication of abnormal test results. Dr Beer was concerned that Mr A was critically unwell due to stress, and that communicating the PSA result would increase Mr A’s risk of stroke or heart attack. Dr Beer decided to wait until Mr A’s blood pressure was under control. Mr A denied that the PSA test result would have overloaded him with stress but rather it would have galvanised him to take the appropriate action immediately.
There were at least ten occasions between 4 August 2017 and October 2019 for Dr Beer to inform Mr A about the abnormal PSA result, both professionally and socially, but he failed to do so. On 24 November 2020, Mr A attended a consultation with Dr Beer, prompted by a relative having undergone prostate surgery and urging Mr A to get his prostate checked. Dr Beer ordered a PSA test, the results of which were abnormal and indicated likely metastatic prostate cancer. Dr Beer referred Mr A to the urology team at the local public hospital. He also explained the reason he had delayed notifying Mr A of the earlier abnormal result and apologised for this. Mr A underwent a biopsy which confirmed the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. Mr A learned that his disease was incurable and he was given six to eight years to live, with advanced treatments.
HDC’s inhouse GP advisor confirmed that discussion and appropriate management of Mr A’s PSA result should have been of high priority and if there was to be any delay in such discussion, a robust reminder or tracking process was required to ensure the discussion took place within a reasonable timeframe. He advised that while it may have been reasonable to delay discussing the result in the immediate aftermath of Mr A’s hypertensive crisis, there should have been such a discussion within a week or so of receipt of the result, particularly by 16 August 2017 when Mr A’s blood pressure and overall condition had improved. The expert advised that Dr Beer’s failure to notify Mr A of his abnormal PSA result and its potential implications in a timely fashion was a moderate to severe departure from expected standards. Further, he advised that Dr Beer’s failure to notify Mr A of his result and to manage the result appropriately despite repeated reminders would be met with severe disapproval by his peers.
Dr Beer has accepted that he failed to provide services to Mr A with reasonable care and skill, and information that a reasonable person, in Mr A’s circumstances, would expect to receive. The HRRT issued a declaration that it was satisfied Dr Beer had breached Rights 4(1) and 6(1) of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.
A link to the Tribunal’s decision can be found at:
2025-NZHRRT-48-Director-of-Proceedings-v-Christopher-Beer.pdf.