such behaviour, the Supreme Court heard yesterday.

Gynaecologist Dr. Delmont Simmons had been rapped before for his conduct, it was claimed.

And in 1981 he received a severe reprimand, said Mr. John Barritt, lawyer for Bermuda Hospitals Board.

"He has a history of such behaviour for which he has been disciplined.'' Yesterday's hearing centred on the right of hospital chiefs to discipline doctors.

Dr. Simmons has challenged the decision by the Hospitals Board to discipline him for "verbally abusing'' a nurse.

The incident occurred at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital last year.

Dr. Simmons swore at nurse Joanne Uttley in front of a patient.

After questioning Dr. Simmons and looking over his record, the Hospitals Board medical staff committee recommended disciplinary action.

The Board -- responsible for running King Edward and St. Brendan's hospitals -- later decided to suspend his patient-admitting privileges for four weeks.

This would mean Dr. Simmons could not work at the hospital for a month.

But the court heard yesterday the punishment had now been reduced to 10 days on appeal.

This is what he would face if Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood upholds the Board's decision.

Mr. Ian Kawaley, for Dr. Simmons, argued the Board had improperly made regulations on disciplinary matters when only the Health Minister was entitled to do so.

Although it was envisaged under the 1970 Bermuda Hospitals Act, the Minister never made the regulations.

Mr. Kawaley said the Board had passed regulations which were "ultra vires'' -- or unlawful.

He later underlined "mitigating'' circumstances surrounding Dr. Simmons' behaviour towards Joanne Uttley.

Mr. Kawaley said Dr. Simmons had been expressing his anger because the nurse was "threatening patient care''.

"This is an integral part of his position, and means this is not a case of someone simply being guilty of misconduct without any form of mitigation,'' he said, adding that Dr. Simmons had been provoked.

Mr. Barritt, however, said the facts surrounding the incident were not at issue.

"As far as the Board is concerned that is a closed book.'' Mr. Barritt stressed the Board had a duty and the power under the Act to deal with such behaviour.

He said the Minister would only get involved on issues of termination.

And if the court ruled otherwise, the decision would be greeted with amazement by hospital staff.

It would suggest staff could act in "any way they please'', he said.

Mr. Barritt stressed Dr. Simmons' competence as a gynaecologist was not questioned.

Sir James said he would give his ruling as soon as possible.