Chiropractor guilty of professional misconduct following consensual relationship with client

A 2024 Queensland tribunal decision reinforces the strict professional boundaries required of health practitioners. In Health Ombudsman v MKY (No. 2) [2024] QCAT 336, a chiropractor was found guilty of professional misconduct after engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a long-term client. Despite no evidence of harm, exploitation or ongoing risk, the practitioner faced serious disciplinary action.

This blog explores the reasoning behind the decision and key lessons for health professionals navigating professional conduct standards.

Facts of the sexual relationship

In this case, the practitioner (MKY) was a chiropractor who had been treating a client (Ms D), as well as various members of her family, for over 15 years. In the latter 18 months of that period, MKY and Ms D conducted an “entirely consensual sexual relationship.”

Towards the end of the relationship, Ms D’s husband made a complaint to the Health Ombudsman about the relationship, which ultimately led to proceedings at QCAT.

The Health Ombudsman sought:

• a finding of “professional misconduct”;
• a suspension for 3-6 months; and
• an obligation to receive mentoring from another practitioner.

Decision of QCAT

QCAT addressed two key issues:

1. Did the relationship constitute professional misconduct? The tribunal held that the relationship did constitute professional misconduct.
2. If there is a finding of professional misconduct, what sanction(s) should be imposed?

The tribunal imposed a fine of $7,500 and a reprimand on the practitioner.

Takeaways for health practitioners

The tribunal noted that any form of sexual relationship with a patient would amount to a finding of professional misconduct:

“Decisions of this and other tribunals are to the effect that, generally, all such conduct falls substantially below the expected standard.”

The tribunal then expanded on this point, quoting a previous decision to note that “any form of social contact with a patient will not be tolerated”.

The justification for an overarching provision is twofold:

1. The power imbalance between practitioners and patients; and
2. The duty of the health practitioner to maintain professional boundaries.

Accordingly, the tribunal continued, it is irrelevant that:

“MKY and Ms D were adults well known to each other conducting an entirely consensual relationship where neither had specific emotional or psychological vulnerabilities.”

Further, QCAT imposed sanctions on the health practitioner despite:

• MKY’s behaviour not being predatory or exploitative;
• the relationship being based on mutual affection and respect;
• no allegation of similar behaviour ever being made or hinted at by any other patient during the more than 20 years MKY has been practicing;
• MKY having no disciplinary history;
• MKY having been burdened by the prospect of these proceedings and their potential consequences for three years;
• references from authors with full knowledge of the conduct referring to MKY’s good character and the high esteem in which he is held in the community;
• MKY exhibiting insight and remorse, and shame for his behaviour;
• no suggestion that MKY represents an ongoing risk of any similar behaviour to any other patient; and
• MKY implementing specific practices that address the potential for boundary violations, including the display of an information sheet for patients and subsequently undertaking mentoring at his own expense.

Get help from a professional conduct lawyer

In short, the tribunal recognised MKY to be a competent, even exemplary practitioner who was of “good character and high esteem”, who at no point ever exhibited any predatory behaviour nor presented any ongoing risk to any patient.

Yet, in spite of that, MKY’s record has been tarnished with a reprimand, and he was fined $7,500. MKY’s case highlights the strict boundaries practitioners must abide by in relation to patients. 

If you are facing disciplinary action for actions which constitute a breach of professional conduct or code of ethics, it is vital you seek early assistance from your union or a lawyer experienced in health law.

Contacting Hall Payne Lawyers

You can contact us by phone or email to arrange your consultation; either face-to-face at one of our offices, by telephone or by videoconference consultation.

Phone: 1800 659 114
Email: general@hallpayne.com.au

Further reading:

• How to deal with Ahpra complaints or notifications as a health professional
• Making statements over the phone to Ahpra
• QCAT decision allows nurse to keep her job after romantic relationship with a patient