Allegations that a physiotherapist patted or lightly spanked a young woman patient, when it was clinically inappropriate for him to do so, and referred to her as his girlfriend, have not been proven, a fitness-to-practise committee has decided.
The patient, whose identity was anonymised as A, previously told an inquiry held by Coru, the regulator for health and social care professionals, that at the end of a consultation on February 7th, 2023, as she was about to rise from an all‑fours “spiderman” position during an exercise, the physiotherapist patted or lightly spanked her left buttock.
She also alleged that the Dublin-based physiotherapist, whose identity was anonymised as B, made inappropriate comments, saying he was “so proud of my girlfriend” and asking her “when are we going to third base?”
The committee said that while the registrant conceded to making a remark referring to going to third base, or words of a similar nature, it was not satisfied that this allegation met the required threshold of seriousness.
RM Block
Committee chairman Patrick O’Connor said the panel was satisfied as to the inappropriateness of this remark.
The committee was not satisfied that the alleged “girlfriend” remarks were made either at all or on more than one occasion.
It found that allegations of poor professional performance were not proven. It said there were no breaches of the code of professional conduct and ethics for physiotherapists, meaning the allegations of professional misconduct were not proven.
O’Connor said A did not raise the allegation of inappropriate touching during a phone call on February 23rd, 2023, with the owner of the clinic, anonymised to C, which was “the first opportunity” to do so. He said the committee found A’s evidence to be “unreliable” regarding this allegation.
The committee had regard to the evidence of C, who said he would have “escalated” the complaint then made by A from an informal one to a formal one if she had mentioned the allegation of inappropriate touching.
O’Connor said the complainant, then a 21-year-old law student, was entitled to make a complaint and the committee recognised the distress caused by the “third-base” remark.
In reaching its findings, the committee disagreed with an expert witness, chartered physiotherapist Margaret Hanlon.
She previously told the committee that, due to the sexual connotations, the third-base remark was “very inappropriate” even if said in a jocular fashion. In her evidence, A said she regarded this comment as a colloquialism for oral sex.
The committee also had regard to B not previously being the subject of a fitness-to-practise case and noted the large number of patients he had treated.
Before delivering the findings, O’Connor said the committee would not allow an application for further evidence to be adduced.
The committee heard that B and C are both the subject of another complaint, made on May 16th by another woman, anonymised to F, who is not a patient.
O’Connor said there was a public interest that complaints were dealt with in a timely manner and the committee did not have the inherent powers of a High Court judge to hear additional evidence.
He said the committee reached its findings in good faith and based on the evidence submitted by both parties.
The committee will report on its findings to Coru’s council in due course.
