Level 13, Mid City Tower, 139 Willis Street, Wellington 6011
PO Box 11649, Manners Street, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
Telephone: 64 4 381 6816 Facsimile: 64 4 802 4831
NEW ZEALAND HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST DR H
This summary relates to the outcome of a disciplinary charge brought against Dr H by the Director of Proceedings of the Health and Disability Commissioner’s office.
The charge has been determined and the Tribunal is yet to make any decision as to penalty, costs and name suppression.
The Tribunal has determined, that as final decisions are yet to be made on the current interim non-publication orders, that a short summary of this disciplinary proceeding should be published now with a full publication of its decision to follow once permanent non-publication orders have been determined.
that pursuant to sections 91 and 100 of the Health Practitioners
Competence Assurance Act 2003, the Director of Proceedings has reason to believe
that a ground exists entitling the Tribunal to exercise its powers against you and
charges that between 18 April 2008 and 4 October 2010 you, being a registered
[ medical practitioner ], in your dealings with Ms Y, a patient and/or former patient,
acted in such a way that amounted to professional misconduct.
While caring for your patient between 18 April 2008 and 18 August 2008 you: a.
failed to set and/or maintain appropriate professional boundaries allowing a relationship of friendship and/or dependency to develop between you and your patient; and/or
prescribed Fluoxetine to your patient without adequate clinical justification; and/or
discharged your patient by telephone on 18 August 2008, that being an inadequate discharge given your patient’s personality characteristics and vulnerabilities.
After terminating the therapeutic relationship with your patient by transferring
failed to set and/or maintain appropriate professional boundaries with your former patient; and/or
engaged in a sexual relationship with your former patient.
Between 14 February 2009 and 4 October 2010:
you made the following payment to your former patient:
$900 on or about 14 or 15 February 2009; and/or
when your former patient approached you with a request that you pay her compensation for injury to her feelings and loss she had suffered as a result of your actions, you failed to seek guidance or support from an appropriate peer and/or professional body in relation to her request; and/or
after a complaint had been made to the Health and Disability Commissioner about your relationship with your former patient, you made the following further payments to your former patient:
$5,000 on or about 1 April 2009; and/or
$15,000 on or about 4 May 2010; and/or
while subject to a complaint by your former patient to the Health and Disability Commissioner and after having been advised by the Medical Council that it was unwise to provide moral support and material assistance to a person whom you had been treating, you
$4,985 on or about 15 February 2010; and/or
$9,985 on or about 16 February 2010; and/or
you encouraged your former patient to mislead the Health and Disability Commissioner about the nature of your relationship; and/or
you sent an email to your former patient’s father on 4 October 2010 for the purpose of arranging a discussion about your former patient without her consent.
The conduct alleged in the above 3 particulars separately or cumulatively amounts to professional misconduct.
Outcome of charge:
The Tribunal reserved its decision and on 20 September 2013 produced its written decision that: - Subparticulars 1(a), 1(b) and 1(d) of the charge have been established and as
established, Particular 1 is sufficiently serious as to warrant discipline for the purposes of protecting the public, maintaining professional standards and punishing the practitioner.
- Subparticulars 2(a) and 2(b) of the charge are also severe departures amounting to
malpractice and the bringing of discredit to the profession. Considered on its own, Particular 2 warrants discipline for the same reasons as above.
- Particular 3 of the charge is established in its entirety and again warrants
- Taking the established particulars cumulatively, the Tribunal determined there
have been multiple and severe breaches of standards over a long period of time and it has called for submissions from Counsel for both parties as to penalty, costs and non-publication of name issues to be filed.
The Tribunal has yet to make a determination on penalty, costs and non-publication orders.
Met het ouder worden verslapt de huid rond de bovenoogleden. Het komt regelmatig voor dat deze huid hierdoor zo uitrekt dat hij over de ogen heen gaat hangen (blepharochalasis). Dit kan gecorrigeerd worden met behulp van plastische chirurgie. Dit noemt men ook wel blepharoplastiek (blepharo betekent ooglid en plastiek komt van plastische chirurgie). In deze folder leest u hoe deze
Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006: 113 (Suppl. 429): 73–80Early detection and treatment ofschizophrenia: how early?Riecher-Ro¨ssler A, Gschwandtner U, Borgwardt S, Aston J, Pﬂu¨ger M,Ro¨ssler W. Early detection and treatment of schizophrenia: how early?Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006: 113 (Suppl. 429): 73–80. ª 2006 Blackwell1Psychiatric Outpatient Department, University HospitalBasel, Basel, Swi