Dr S Med22/560P

A panel of the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) convened 20 to 22 March 2023 to hear a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Medical Council of New Zealand against Dr S (the Doctor).

Charge:

In summary, the charge alleged that the Doctor engaged in an inappropriate relationship, inappropriately prescribed, inappropriately altered and maintained records, and breached conditions imposed by the Medical Council as a result of an earlier Tribunal order.

The Tribunal charged that the alleged conduct amounted to professional misconduct in that, either separately or cumulatively, it amounted to malpractice or negligence; and/or has brought or is likely to bring discredit to the profession.

A full copy of the charge is located in the Appendix to the full decision.

Background

On 6 June 2017, the Doctor started working at a medical centre on a series of locum contracts. In April 2018 the patient had an appointment with her. From June 2019, the Doctor was patient’s regular GP, and in the same month a close personal relationship between them started, developing into a sexual relationship in October 2019.

Between June 2019 and October 2020, the Doctor provided GP services to the patient. These included prescribing medications, completing certificates and ACC claims, providing advice on his neck injury and referrals to other treatment providers. The quantity and type of prescriptions made raised questions that some were for the Doctor’s personal use, but the Doctor denied this.

Prior to the hearing, the parties conferred, and the Practitioner accepted all factual allegations except that the prescriptions she had made in the patient’s name had actually been intended for her own use. The Doctor had previously been subjected to a condition on her practice to not to self-prescribe or prescribe to friends or family members after it was found she had written prescriptions for five family members that were intended for her own use, which her prescribing to the patient breached.

Finding

The majority of the particulars were established by way of the Doctor’s admission of liability. The Tribunal also found that, despite the Doctor’s denial, some medications prescribed to the patient were in fact for her own use.

The Tribunal found that the sexual relationship on its own amounted to negligence as a departure from professional standards. There is zero tolerance for sexual relationships with patients. When looking at the conduct holistically, it was not simply naïve or unwise, but deliberate and unethical. It was aggravated by the fact that the Doctor was repeatedly deceptive about the nature of her relationship with the patient.

The Tribunal saw the protection of the public and the Dcotor’s rehabilitation as paramount considerations when deciding to cancel her registration, which required certain pre-conditions to be satisfied before reapplication for registration.

Penalty

The Tribunal ordered:

• Censure
• Cancellation of the Doctor’s registration for a period of 12 months
• Conditions that before the Doctor applies for registration, she must undergo a psychiatric assessment and complete an education programme about medical ethics.
• Costs of $78,771.44.

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.