|
|
Allegations
of Sexual Abuse in NZ |
|
NZ Doctor An Auckland GP had difficulty accounting for texts of a personal nature at a disciplinary hearing where he adamantly denied having a sexual relationship with a patient. The GP denied a charge of professional misconduct for having a sexual relationship with a patient from 22 December 2006 to 26 June 2007 at a hearing in Auckland (12-13 November). The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal reserved its decision in a case the lawyer defending the GP, Harry Waalkens QC, described as "essentially an assessment of credibility (his word versus hers)." The patient appeared giving evidence of an affair she alleges started after the sole charge GP employed her as a part time practice nurse. However, she says the GP had phoned her frequently in the previous two years, after her first appointment in September 2004 for a medical examination, needed to extend a working visa. The lawyer representing the health and disability commissioner´s director of proceedings, Greg Hollister-Jones, accused the GP of grooming his patient for a closer relationship. The woman said soon after her employment in October 2006, the GP forced himself on her at his surgery, after a Christmas dinner with her and the receptionist. This started an affair that lasted throughout her employment, with the pair having sex at the surgery, in a motel and at her home, she alleges. The GP denied most of the allegations and said he never had a sexual relationship with her. His lawyer, Harry Waalkens QC, suggested the woman was infatuated with the GP and, when the employment situation turned sour, sought revenge through a false claim to the HDC. Different versions of events The GP and patient agreed on some facts but had very different versions of events. The GP agreed he personally delivered chest x-rays following her first appointment. He says he met her at a fast food outlet because she had expressed an interest in working for him as a practice nurse and he wanted to discuss that. In cross examination by Mr Hollister-Jones, the GP admitted it was unusual to personally deliver x-rays, or conduct an interview outside the surgery. At that stage she was still training as a nurse. The GP says he noted her name on his desk blotter for future reference as he was having trouble finding practice nurses to employ. He denied calling the woman frequently over the next two years, saying he only called her shortly before employing her. The doctor said her employment was not a happy or successful arrangement, because she was grumpy and distant. Towards the end of her employment, he says, he gave her two verbal warnings about racist comments. In cross-examination, Mr Hollister-Jones asked whether the grumpy, moody racist employee the GP described would be the sort of person he would choose as a friend. "Probably not," the GP replied. Mr Hollister-Jones then referred the tribunal to transcriptions of cellphone texts the patient had saved from the GP, that, he said, indicated a personal relationship. In particular, the GP was unable to account for a text, sent at 9.53pm, saying, "Hi, I’m outside." Another, sent to the practice nurse after her shift finished, said he was having trouble giving up smoking and suggested "a cup of tea" later on. A text sent at 8.21am, when the woman had called in sick, said "B careful tis cold is bad, I´l cum now 2 giv u sum meds." The GP said he didn’t drop the medicine around to her home, despite a text sent six minutes later saying, "See you soon." The patient said in her evidence she and the GP had sex at a motel on 1 February. However, Mr Waalkens said HDC investigators had written to the motel asking whether they had a record of the GP and patient staying that night, and the motel didn’t. Mr Waalkens said the investigators took the complainant to the motel, but she couldn’t identify the room they had used. At that point, Mr Waalkens said, the woman realised "the game was up". In closing, Mr Hollister-Jones commented hotel and motel rooms "have a sameness". Further, the management said it wasn’t policy to get identification from a customer. A professional man would have reason not to give correct details, he submitted. GP concedes woman was a patient The GP initially claimed he didn’t think of the woman as a patient, because she wasn’t registered with the practice and he hadn’t seen her often. However, during the hearing he conceded he had treated her several times, including for a cervical smear while she was his employee, and had a patient file for her, so she was a patient. Mr Waalkens, in closing submissions, suggested even if the tribunal decided a sexual relationship was likely, which is denied, it would have to decide whether the nature of the doctor-patient relationship was significant enough to warrant a disciplinary finding. "The Medical Council’s statement `Sexual Boundaries in the Doctor-Patient Relationship´ is but a guideline," Mr Waalkens said. The patient alleged the GP gave her a depo povera injection and Mr Hollister-Jones concluded this and the smear, in particular, would tip the balance in favour of disciplinary action. |
