Charge

On 10 March 2020 the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal heard two charges of professional misconduct under section 100(1)(b) of the Health Practitioners Act that the alleged conduct of Mr Rejinold Victor Adolf registered medical radiation technologist (the MRT) was likely to bring discredit to the Medical Radiation Technologist profession.

The Charges alleged that the MRT

Charge 1:  Behaved in an inappropriate and/or sexually inappropriate manner towards a 19 year old female cleaner who worked at the MRT’s hospital by:

• Asking questions and making comments that made the cleaner uncomfortable; and/or
• When the cleaner was cleaning in the room he had been sleeping in (“the room”), asking the cleaner to give him a massage; and/or
• Shutting the door to the room with the cleaner inside the room with him; and/or
• Nudging the cleaner so she ended up sitting on the bed; and/or
• Telling the cleaner to remove her jacket and lie down on the bed on her tummy so he could give her a massage; and/or
• Barring the cleaner’s attempts to leave the room; and/or
• As she tried to leave, grabbing her, and/or pulling her into him and/or hugging her; and/o
• Asking the cleaner for her phone number; and/or
• Trying to kiss the cleaner on the forehead.

And/or

Charge 2:  Raised his voice and/or yelled at the cleaner and told her to do her job and/or otherwise acted in an intimidating manner towards her.

Jurisdiction

The Charges initially alleged that the behaviour of the MRT amounted to professional misconduct under both section 100(1)(a) or (b) of the Act.  However, the Tribunal following submissions from both parties determined it did not have jurisdiction to hear the Charge in relation to 100(1)(a) malpractice or negligence in relation to the MRT’s scope of practice.

Finding

The background facts and circumstances of when the alleged incident occurred were largely agreed.  There was no issue about the date and place or identity of the MRT in relation to the incident that took place.  The first Charge was based on the evidence of the cleaner and the second Charge was based on the evidence of the MRT.  The MRT denied the alleged behavior in Charge 1 and the cleaner denied the allegation in Charge 2.

In a reserved decision, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the cleaner as a credible account of the incident.  Cumulatively the particulars of Charge 1 amounted to professional misconduct and warranted disciplinary sanction.  The Tribunal did not accept the MRT’s evidence that he raised his voice and/or yelled at the cleaner and dismissed Charge 2.

Penalty

In a separate penalty Decision dated 19 May 2020 the Tribunal ordered the MRT:

• be censured;
• practise under various conditions should the practitioner recommence practice in New Zealand;
• be fined $5,000;
• pay a contribution of $18,000 amounting to 30% of the costs of and incidental to the hearing;

The Tribunal dismissed the practitioner’s application for permanent name suppression and recommended to the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologists Board that it makes a copy of the Tribunal’s decision available to the Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia.

The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.