North Island doctor found guilty of unjustified clinical breast examinations is appealing

The appeal was filed in the High Court at Wellington on May 15. Photo / 123RF

A doctor found guilty of conducting unjustified clinical breast exams is fighting to have the decision overturned.

The Lower North Island physician, who is still working at a medical practice in the area, was found guilty in an oral decision at a Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) in November.

The ruling relates to complaints from made from 2011 to 2017 regarding multiple women who said he suggested and carried out breast examinations despite the fact they were there for unrelated health queries.

Eight women spoke of the behaviour, which continued despite the doctor promising his supervisors he would "utterly avoid" raising the topic of breast cancer prevention.

An oral verdict was given on November 22 and the appeal was filed on May 14, with a hearing date yet to be scheduled.

The tribunal has confirmed that decision is now being appealed in the High Court at Wellington.

Although the tribunal was unable to respond to requests about the case's timeline, chief executive Gay Fraser advised that any party wishing to appeal against a Tribunal decision would have to do so within 20 working days of the written decision being communicated.

Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) lawyer Emma Kennedy said the written verdict was delivered on April 17.

Name suppression was due to lift 20 working days after this was given, however it remains until the appeal has been heard.

The written decision was expected early this year and the Herald had made several enquiries into its publication date.

Fraser couldn't comment on how long cases normally took and said each hearing was dealt with depending on its own complexities.

"Some hearings require further time than the dates that are set aside to hear the matter and some are able to be completed within the time set down."

Included in the charge was the doctor's failure to record several breast examinations, asking a woman whether she knew she was very attractive and commenting "for your age, they're [breasts] quite full" or words to that effect.

In one case, the doctor asked a 15-year-old presenting with a sore throat whether she masturbated and then told her it was healthy and good for her.

At the time of the hearing, the tribunal ruled the doctor must undertake an 18-month education course on ethics and sexual boundaries, pay a fine of $5000 and abide by conditions proposed by the PCC for three years.

However, the tribunal had said the conditions would not be finalised until it had been given in writing.

Defence counsel Donald Stevens was unable to comment on the case because it was before the court, but confirmed they were appealing the ruling.

In November, Stevens had argued permanent suppression should be granted because one of the man's relatives was studying medicine and lifting it would severely affect the person's reputation.

While this was denied at the time, his name remains suppressed due to the appeal process.