Practitioner update · Medical Tribunal of NSW (2008)
On 5 November 2008 the Medical Tribunal of NSW found neurosurgeon Dr Marcus Andrew Stoodley guilty of professional misconduct arising from a personal relationship with a patient in 2003 and 2004, and reprimanded him.
- Tribunal
- Medical Tribunal of NSW
- Matter
- HCCC v Dr Marcus Andrew Stoodley (40021/07)
- Decision date
- 5 November 2008
- Outcome
- Reprimand and costs
What the complaint concerned
The Health Care Complaints Commission brought complaints of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct arising from Dr Stoodley's relationship with a patient (Patient A) he treated in 2003 and 2004, including performing surgery in January 2004. Dr Stoodley admitted most of the particulars and admitted unsatisfactory professional conduct.
The one disputed factual issue was when the doctor–patient relationship ended. The patient did not give evidence. The Tribunal accepted Dr Stoodley's evidence, which it found uncontradicted and honestly given, and found the therapeutic relationship ended in early February 2004.
The Tribunal's findings
The Tribunal found Dr Stoodley guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct based on his:
- meeting the patient outside the professional setting on two occasions in December 2003, before her operation;
- commencing a sexual relationship with the patient immediately after ending their therapeutic relationship;
- failing to refer the patient to another neurosurgeon when he stopped treating her; and
- writing a referral for an MRI scan at a time when she was no longer his patient.
It found the conduct, in particular commencing a sexual relationship immediately after the therapeutic relationship ended, sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct.
Orders
The Commission urged deregistration or suspension, and also proposed a fine and conditions. The Tribunal declined to make any of those orders. It took into account that the events were four years old, that this was the only occasion on which Dr Stoodley had entered a relationship with a patient, that he had significantly changed how he interacts with patients, and that he had gained insight with professional help. It accepted his contrition and remorse, supported by referees, and was satisfied he had been rehabilitated to the point that the community was protected while he continued to practise. It ordered that:
- Dr Stoodley is reprimanded in respect of his conduct in relation to Patient A.
- He pay the costs of the proceedings.
Source: Medical Tribunal of NSW, Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Marcus Andrew Stoodley, matter 40021/07, decision of 5 November 2008 (published by the Health Care Complaints Commission), accessed 20 October 2026.
