Charge
On 14 June 2023, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) considered a charge laid by the Director of Proceedings, designated by the Health and Disability Commissioner, against Joseph Gregory Crozier, registered Osteopath (“the Osteopath”) of Morrinsville. The charge was laid under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.
The charge is summarised below and alleges that the Osteopath acted in an unprofessional manner towards a patient, Mrs R, in particular:
- Made an inappropriate comment about Mrs R’s underwear whilst providing treatment;
- Digitally penetrated Mrs R’s vagina whilst providing treatment to her and made a sexual comment towards Mrs R about her genital area;
- Failed to ensure that Mrs R was appropriately covered whilst providing her treatment.
The conduct alleged in the above three particulars separately or cumulatively amounts to professional misconduct. The conduct is alleged to amount to malpractice and/or negligence and/or conduct that brings discredit to the osteopathic profession under s100(1)(a) and s100(1)(b).
A copy of the full charge can be found at the end of the decision.
The Osteopath accepted the charge and that it amounts to professional misconduct. The hearing proceeded by way of an agreed summary of facts.
Background
The Osteopath gained his registration in 2004 in London, and shortly after emigrated to New Zealand. He was self-employed and ran his practice out of his spare room. The patient had suffered an injury which caused ongoing lower back pain. She sought osteopathic treatment for the first time, so she did not know what to expect. She had three hour long appointments with the Osteopath.
At the first and third appointments, she was accompanied by her young child. For all the appointments, the patient was undressed to her bra and underwear and the Osteopath failed to provide draping when the patient was lying face down. He would also re-enter the room before the patient had finished undressing and draped herself.
At the second appointment, the Osteopath made an inappropriate comment about the patients underwear that was sexual in nature. At the third appointment, during a soft-tissue massage of the patients glutes and quads, the Osteopath pulled the patients underwear aside and digitally penetrated her vagina. The patient denies giving consent to this. The practitioner subsequently made a further inappropriate sexual comment to the patient.
Finding
The Tribunal found all three particulars established. Particulars 1 and 2 were both serious enough on their own to amount to professional misconduct and warranted disciplinary sanction. Particular 3 was not considered serious enough separately to amount to professional misconduct, although when considered cumulatively with particulars 1 and 2, the majority of the Tribunal decided that the disciplinary threshold was met. One osteopath member of the Tribunal did not agree that Particular 3 was serious enough to amount to professional misconduct. It was his view that it is commonplace for patients not to be draped while they are lying face down.
The Tribunal considered the patient’s vulnerability, the lack of consent and the presence of the patient’s child in the room as aggravating features of the misconduct. Whilst the Tribunal agreed the Osteopath had substantially cooperated with the disciplinary process, there was a limited degree to which this could mitigate the seriousness of the charge. The Osteopath had voluntarily retired from practice and moved away from the area, thus the Tribunal considered the cancellation of his registration was appropriate.
Penalty
The Tribunal ordered:
- Censure
- Cancellation of registration
- Payment of 30% of the costs of the Tribunal and the Director of Proceedings, $3,459.30 and $7,065.00 respectively.
The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.