KEY POINTS:
A woman who claims her doctor initiated a sexual relationship with her was unable to identify the motel room where she alleges they had sex on one occasion.
The Auckland GP's lawyer, Harry Waalkens QC, asserted yesterday this backed the doctor's argument that the woman had fabricated her complaint.
The reason she could not identify the room was that "the game was up", Mr Waalkens told the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, which reserved its decision on the professional misconduct case.
He said that if the woman had identified a unit when on a visit to the motel with a Health and Disability Commission investigator, the motel's records would have shown that she and the doctor had not been its occupants on the evening in question.
The tribunal has suppressed the names of the doctor and the complainant. Many of the facts in the case are contested: the doctor has denied virtually all of the allegations. "I have at no time had a sexual relationship with [the woman]," he said.
The woman shifted to New Zealand in 2000. She first met the doctor in September 2004, when he conducted a medical examination for immigration purposes. She was a nursing student and later qualified.
He delivered x-ray films and results from the examination to her personally. He said this was because she had expressed interest in a nursing job and they met at a fast-food restaurant.
He employed the woman from October 2006 as a part-time practice nurse. She left in June last year after having a row with a receptionist.
The doctor was involved in her medical care while she worked at his clinic, including taking a cervical smear, although she was not considered a frequent patient.
The prosecutor, Gregory Hollister-Jones, said the woman's failure to identify the motel room was not a fatal flaw in his case. Hotel and motel rooms "have a sameness".
In evidence earlier, the doctor portrayed the woman as a difficult employee, one who was often moody.
He could not explain why he had texted to the woman one night at 9.53, "Hi, I'm outside".
Mr Waalkens said: "That doesn't corroborate existence of an affair. At the most it may point at there being some smoke, but there's no proof of a sexual affair."
