📁 The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal | Outcomes

📁 Dr Bainbridge – Med20/490P

Auckland psychiatrist Dr Simon Bainbridge’s registration was cancelled after he had an intimate relationship with a vulnerable patient.

Dr Bainbridge was working as a consultant psychiatrist with the Counties Manukau District Health Board when he started treating Ms E for depression in 2011. Ms E also suffered from mobility difficulties. The relationship commenced after Ms E invited Dr Bainbridge for coffee after a treatment session in 2011 and continued until 2018. The relationship only came to light when Ms E’s personal trainer saw sexually explicit images of Dr Bainbridge on Ms E’s phone. The personal trainer became concerned about the nature of the relationship and subsequently contacted the Medical Council. Dr Bainbridge denied any sexual involvement with Ms E, stating that she had developed an unhealthy infatuation with him. A three-day tribunal hearing was held in Auckland in April 2021 to determine the charge.

Findings

Having heard evidence from Ms E, her personal trainer, Dr Bainbridge, and four other witnesses, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr Bainbridge entered into and maintained a sexual relationship with Ms E during the period of 2011 – 2018. The Tribunal did not accept Dr Bainbridge’s account that Ms E was infatuated with him, or his explanation that at one point he threatened to call the Police if she did not cease contacting him. The Tribunal noted that Dr Bainbridge was not credible and could not corroborate supposedly raising Ms E’s inappropriate advances towards him with his peer group. Ultimately, the Tribunal considered Dr Bainbridge’s actions of maintaining a relationship with Ms E was a serious breach of professional boundaries bringing discredit to the profession, and that this amounted to professional misconduct.

Penalty

In cancelling Dr Bainbridge’s registration, the Tribunal noted Dr Bainbridge’s conduct was a serious departure from expected professional and ethical standards. The Tribunal considered that Dr Bainbridge was in a position of trust, and that there was a firmly entrenched power imbalance underpinning the relationship. The Tribunal cancelled Dr Bainbridge’s registration and prohibited him from re-applying for a period of 2 years and 8 months. It ordered that Dr Bainbridge could not reapply for registration for at least 2 years and 8 months, and that before he could reapply he had to undertake a Sexual Misconduct Assessment.

The full decision can be found here.

High Court appeal[2022] NZHC 3289

Dr Bainbridge appealed the Tribunal’s findings to the High Court, saying the Tribunal erred by favouring Ms E’s evidence. Dr Bainbridge also said the Tribunal’s hearing was unfair because he represented himself as no one stressed the importance of having a lawyer. Finally, Dr Bainbridge disagreed that his registration should be cancelled.

In dismissing Dr Bainbridge’s appeal, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal’s findings. Justice Gordon agreed that cancellation was appropriate given previous authorities, the psycho-therapeutic nature of the treatment provided, and the patient’s vulnerability. Her Honour also noted Dr Bainbridge appeared to be determined to represent himself throughout the proceedings (following regular reminders that he may wish to obtain a lawyer). Her Honour emphasised that Dr Bainbridge had a lawyer but following a disagreement with his lawyer he elected to represent himself. 

📁 Dr M – Med20/482P

In a decision released on 16 December 2021, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found a charge of professional misconduct against Dr M established for prescribing medications in family members’ names for his own use.

Dr M had been prescribing medications including tramadol and omeprazole in family members’ names for personal use over a four-year period between 2013 and 2017. At the time, Dr M was subject to a voluntary agreement with the Medical Council’s Health Committee to abstain from taking medications not prescribed to him. Dr M also attempted to hide his self-prescribing by misleading the Medical Council, saying the drugs were for his family members after concerns were raised. Dr M had also written 147 prescriptions for his wife over a nine-year period. The prescriptions included psychotropic medications, controlled drugs, and drugs with a potential for addiction and misuse.

Findings

The Tribunal considered the particulars of the charge established, noting that each (separately and cumulatively) amounted to a serious departure from acceptable standards and professional guidelines. The Tribunal characterised Dr M’s conduct as improper and unethical, noting that his practise of prescribing drugs with a risk of addiction / misuse to his wife was haphazard and lacked any objective assessment. Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that Dr M’s conduct amounted to both malpractice and negligence which brought or was likely to bring discredit to the medical profession.

Penalty

The Tribunal considered Dr M’s conduct was persistent and occurred over an extended period. It was significantly aggravating that Dr M prescribed a large quantity of prescriptions (169 in total) for a wide range of medications, including medications with a risk of abuse and dependency such as tramadol, lorazepam, and zopiclone. Dr M’s actions in misleading the Medical Council were described as dishonest.

Dr M attributed his conduct to his and his wife’s health issues, noting that his actions were not driven by any recreational or improper purposes. The Tribunal acknowledged that Dr M was remorseful and had led an exemplary career by making significant contributions to the health services in his region.

The Tribunal did not consider it necessary to cancel or suspend Dr M’s registration, as he had already ceased practising. The Tribunal ordered: a censure;
- a fine of $7,500;
- a contribution towards costs; and
- conditions on Dr M’s scope of practice should he choose to return.

The full decision can be found here. 

High Court appeal – Admissibility of Dr M’s interview with the Professional Conduct Committee[2021] NZHC 2249

Dr M met with the Professional Conduct Committee at the conclusion of the PCC’s investigation. At the meeting, Dr M made various admissions about his own conduct. The PCC later tried to rely on these admissions to prove the professional misconduct charge. At a pre-trial hearing, the Tribunal ruled the PCC could not rely on Dr M’s admissions as evidence.

The PCC appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the High Court. In a decision released in August 2021, the High Court held that Dr M’s statements to the PCC during the meeting were not privileged and could be used as evidence before the Tribunal. In allowing the appeal, the High Court stated, “The Tribunal’s interpretation would allow a practitioner to appear before the PCC and admit to misconduct in ways the PCC might not be able to prove through other evidence, which the Tribunal would be unable to consider or take into account when dealing with a charge of professional misconduct against that practitioner.”