Health Care Complaints Commission v Ryken [2016] NSWCATOD 58

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Health Care Complaints Commission v Ryken [2016] NSWCATOD 58 Hearing dates: 25 and 26 February 2016 Date of orders: 11 May 2016 Decision date: 11 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Occupational Division Before: R Titterton, Senior Member Dr D Kostur, Professional Member Dr I Villadsen, Professional Member F Taylor, General Member Decision: 1. The respondent is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct. 2. The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct. 3. The respondent is publicly reprimanded. 4. The registration of the respondent is suspended for a period of six months from the date of these reasons. 5. Upon the ceasing of the six-month period of suspension the conditions appearing in Attachment B to these reasons are placed on the respondent's registration for a period of 18 months. 6. The Chiropractic Council of NSW is the appropriate review body of these conditions for the purposes of Part 8 of the National Law. 7. Sections 125 and 127 of the National Law are to apply while the practitioner's principal place of practice is anywhere in Australia other than NSW so that a review of these conditions can be conducted by the Chiropractic Board of Australia. 8. The respondent is to pay the Commission's costs as agreed or as assessed. Catchwords: CHIROPRACTOR – Where practitioner admits he is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct – sexual relationship with patient while therapeutic relationship continues – inappropriate relationships with two other patients – failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with three patients - telephone communication with patient while he was patient's treating practitioner which was of a personal nature having regard to the volume, frequency, timing and/or nature of the cells; inappropriate physical and/or sexual contact Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Health Care Complaints Act 1993 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law NSW No 86a Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1983) 6 CLR 336 Forster v Hunter New England Area Health Service Gayed v Walton [1997] NSWSC 279 Health Care Complaints Commission v Gow [2008] NSWMT 2 Health Care Complaints Commission v Howe [2010] NSWMT 12 Health Care Complaints Commission v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267 Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 Health Care Complaints Commission v Saedlounia [2013] NSWMT 13 Health Care Complaints Commission v Stoodley: Medical Tribunal of NSW, 5 November 2008. Health Care Complaints Commission v Smith [2015] NSWCATOD 85 Health Care Complaints Commission v Woods [2012] NSWCHT 2 NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340 Prakash v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 153 Re Dr Parajuli [2010] NSWMT 3 Reimers v Health Care Complaints Commission v [2015] NSWCA 317 Sabag v Health Care complaints Commission [2001] NSWCA 411 Smith v the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [2013] NSWNMT 10 Sudath v HCCC [2012] NSWCA 171 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Health Care Complaints Commission (Applicant) Dr Daniel Ryken (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr A Britt (Applicant) Solicitors: Makinson d'Apice Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 1520168 Publication restriction: Pursuant to Schedule 5D cl 7 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law publication of the name of the patients in the Amended Complaint (namely each of Patient A, Patient B and Patient C) is prohibited.