Charge Detail Summary

Return
File Number: Med20/488P
Practitioner: Paul Charles Bennett
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:


Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Order for interim name suppression for the practitioner and any identifying details

Application for permanent non-publication of practitioner's name is dismissed

1111Med20488P.pdf1148Med20488P.pdf


Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Order for interim name suppression for the patient and any identifying details

Permanent suppression of the patient's name and identifying details

 

1111Med20488P.pdf1148Med20488P.pdf


Appeal Order:

Name Suppression to Practitioner
(Quashed)
Outcome
The Doctor's appeal against the suppression refusal was refused.  Bennett v PCC [2022] NZHC 876.


Decision:

Full Decision 1148Med20488P.pdf


Minute of the Tribunal to reconsider its powers under s102 of the HPCA Act 2003
1248Med20488P.pdf


Appeal Decision:

Penalty Decision
(Altered)
Outcome

The Doctor appealed the Tribunal’s penalty and non-publication orders to the High Court.  The Court dismissed the appeal except for the condition at paragraph [142](b)(ii) which was quashed and referred back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of its powers under s 102 of the Act.  The appeal against the suppression refusal was refused.  Bennett v PCC [2022] NZHC 876.



Precis of Decision:

Charge

On 15 and 16 February 2021, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee against Dr Paul Charles Bennett, medical practitioner of Dunedin (the Doctor).

The Charge alleged that:

  1. For a period of approximately 2 years, the Doctor entered into and continued a sexual relationship with a patient who had recently been a patient of his at the time of commencing the relationship; and / or
  2. For a period between about 2 months prior to the sexual relationship and four months after the relationship ended, the Doctor provided medical care to his patient.
  3. Made misleading statements to the Medical Council denying he had been in a sexual relationship with his patient.

Background

The Doctor admitted the charge and the hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Summary of Facts.

The patient had been the Doctor’s patient for 8 years.  He was also her children’s doctor.  The relationship grew out of the Doctor and patient’s mutual interest in an activity.  During a six-week holiday, the Doctor employed the patient on a cash basis, to do the activity in his absence which she agreed to do and they continued to see each other on a regular basis after that, enjoying their mutual interest.

About one month prior to the relationship becoming intimate, the Doctor transferred the patient to another doctor at the centre where he worked.  Despite this, the Doctor continued to see the patient for five consultations before the other doctor was first mentioned as the clinician for the patient.  The Doctor continued to write prescriptions for the patient and continued as the GP for the patient’s children.  The patient saw the Doctor on at least nine occasions after transfer.  The Doctor also provided repeat prescriptions from time to time over the course of their relationship.

After their intimate relationship stopped, the Doctor and patient continued to communicate with each other.

In November 2018 after a complaint was laid with the Medical Council of New Zealand, the Doctor responded to the Medical Council denying he had engaged in any sexual conduct.  The Doctor then recanted this in a letter to the Medical Council in March 2019.

Finding

The Tribunal found that the Doctor did enter into and continue a sexual relationship with his patient and this clearly breached the standards set out in the Medical Council’s Statement Sexual Boundaries in the Doctor-Patient Relationship.  The Tribunal was satisfied that regardless of the exact timing of the Doctor commencing a sexual relationship with his patient, there was an ongoing intimate and inappropriate relationship with her.  It is wrong for a doctor to enter into a relationship with a former patient, or a close relative of the patient, if this breaches the trust the patient placed in the doctor.

The Tribunal also found that the Doctor did mislead the Medical Council in denying the relationship.  It was not until the Medical Council knew of the relationship that he retracted his denial.

Penalty

The Tribunal:

  • cancelled the Doctor’s registration;
  • imposed conditions to be satisfied before re-registration;
  • imposed conditions for three years upon re-commencement of practice;
  • censured the Doctor;
  • ordered the Doctor pay 35% of costs fixed at $30,000; and
  • directed publication of the decision.

Appeal

The Doctor appealed the Tribunal’s penalty and non-publication orders to the High Court.  The Court dismissed the appeal except for the condition at paragraph [142](b)(ii) which was quashed and referred back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of its powers under s 102 of the Act.  The appeal against the suppression refusal was refused.  Bennett v PCC [2022] NZHC 876.

In a Minute of the Tribunal dated 29 June 2022 the Tribunal accepted that it had no power to impose the condition at [142](b)(ii) under s 102 of the Act and that no further orders would be made.