An Auckland chiropractor has been disciplined by a watchdog for carrying on an intimate relationship with a patient while also treating her, over a “lengthy” period.
A chiropractor who had a sexual relationship with a patient spanning two years has been censured and suspended for eight months.
Dr N of Auckland, who has interim name suppression, was called before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on Monday, charged with professional misconduct.
The five-personal tribunal heard that Mrs O started seeing Dr N in January 2016, and attended fortnightly appointments through to October 2018.
Dr N and Mrs O do not agree as to who initiated the attraction and when, but the tribunal heard that in late October 2016, he discussed having a sexual relationship with her.
READ MORE:
* Timaru chiropractor fined for seeing patients while unvaccinated
* Lawyer lied about sexual relationship with client twice before coming clean
The relationship continued between November 2016 and late November 2018.
The tribunal, led by barrister Alison Douglass, heard the pair initially met two to three times a week.
Contact “increased” to a point where Dr N and Mrs O would typically meet every weekday morning, and either every weekday lunch or briefly after work.
In the meantime, their clinical relationship continued.
Clinical notes show Mrs O’s last appointment was on October 30, 2018, shortly before Dr N’s wife discovered their relationship in November, and it ended.
Supplied
Clinical notes show the clinical relationship continued alongside the intimate relationship, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal also heard that Dr N continued to treat Mrs O’s son, aged in his early teens at the time, throughout the relationship.
In June 2019, Mrs O made a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner about Dr N, and he was found in breach of the patients’ rights code.
On Monday, director of proceedings Kerrin Eckersley told the tribunal there was an “irrefutable” power imbalance in the relationship.
The relationship was a “lengthy one”, and could not be characterised as a “one-off lapse of judgment”, she said.
Instead, it was a “sustained breach”, despite “ample opportunity” over the two years for Dr N to end the relationship.
She noted that while Dr N had taken some steps towards rehabilitation, it was “slightly revealing” that his affidavit did not acknowledge the impact his professional misconduct had on the patient, suggesting a “lack of insight”.
Dr N’s lawyer, Peter Napier, said he was “remorseful” for his actions – “unique” in his 40 years of practice – which would “never happen again”.
Dr N had made “immediate changes” to reduce his stress and workload and embark on rehabilitation, driven by the realisation of the “recklessness” and “inappropriateness” of his affair with Mrs O, to ensure he never crosses such professional or personal boundaries again, the tribunal heard.
Douglass gave an oral indication of penalty, which will come into effect when the written decision is released.
The tribunal suspended Dr N for eight months, put conditions on his practice – that he undergo two years’ of professional supervision at his own cost, and notify prospective employers of the tribunal’s decision for two years – and censured him, marking its “disapproval”.
Douglass said the case was setting itself up for cancellation, but Dr N’s co-operation with the tribunal and rehabilitative steps taken swayed the balance in justifying the “narrow escape” to suspension.
Dr N’s application for permanent name suppression was declined. However, Douglass continued the order for interim name suppression until the written decision is released.
التعليقات