Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, 1351/Ost23/578D, (19 November 2023)
The Director of Proceedings filed proceedings against Mr Joseph Crozier (the practitioner), in the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal).
This case concerned several boundary violations of a sexual nature that occurred during the treatment of a female patient, including making comments of a sexual nature about the patient’s underwear and genital area, inappropriate draping, and on one occasion, digital penetration of the patient. The patient’s child was in the room when the digital penetration occurred.
The practitioner acknowledged how serious the incident was and that his actions were a breach of his professional code of conduct. The practitioner maintained his belief that he had the patient’s consent (which the patient strongly denied) but acknowledged that even in the presence of consent such actions would be unjustifiable. The Tribunal noted that regardless of the practitioner’s understanding, when viewed objectively, the conduct clearly constituted malpractice. The Tribunal was particularly concerned about the presence of the patient’s child in the room when the digital penetration occurred.
The Tribunal noted the significant amount of jurisprudence on the seriousness of boundary violations of a sexual nature and considered that the practitioner’s conduct was a serious violation. The Tribunal had no hesitation in finding that the threshold had been met regarding the digital penetration and the sexual remarks, and that the inadequate draping, when viewed cumulatively with the other conduct, was also sufficiently serious to require disciplinary sanction.
The Tribunal considered that the patient’s vulnerability, the lack of consent, and the presence of the patient’s child in the room at the time of the patient being digitally penetrated were serious aggravating features. The Tribunal was particularly concerned about the last factor. The practitioner was given credit for acting appropriately throughout the disciplinary process, including accepting that his actions constituted professional misconduct.
The practitioner was censured, and his registration was cancelled. The Tribunal concluded that cancellation was the only possible outcome, and no other less restrictive penalty would be appropriate given the seriousness of the facts. No conditions were imposed on his practice as the practitioner made it clear through his Counsel that he had retired and would not return to practice. The Tribunal determined that the imposition of a fine was not appropriate in this instance, as the practitioner had already imposed sanctions on himself, and credit should be given to the way in which he conducted himself in the proceeding.
The Tribunal’s decision can be found at:
https://www.hpdt.org.nz/portals/0/1359_Ost23_578D.pdf