Page Section: Centre Content Column
DP v Allen
Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal,
13 December 2005
On 13 December 2005 the Health Practitioners Disciplinary
Tribunal upheld a charge of professional misconduct laid against an
occupational therapist, Ms Sonja Allen, of Auckland. The Director
of Proceedings alleged that Ms Allen had formed a personal
relationship that was harmful and/or potentially harmful to the
complainant, who was her client.
Ms Allen was employed by a District Health Board in a service
that provided occupational therapy to persons who were also
receiving assistance from mental health services. Ms Allen's role
involved her providing individual career counselling to clients and
liaising with mental health care teams in respect of clients'
needs.
The complainant was referred to the service in March 2001 and Ms
Allen was assigned as his occupational therapist. The complainant's
diagnosis was "anxiety/depressive/panic disorder". In November
2002, after the complainant started emailing Ms E, a community
support worker employed in the service where Ms Allen worked, it
was agreed between Ms E, Ms Allen and the team manager that email
correspondence would be used in relation to the complainant
designing signs for the service. The complainant was comfortable
engaging through email and found that he could effectively
communicate with others by email. The team manager emphasised
that they were to limit their email contact to the task and not to
build up relationships.
However, Ms Allen later admitted that she and the complainant
were in regular contact outside of work hours by email and MSN,
often in the middle of the night, and often several times a
night. The communications continued from mid-November 2002 to
early May 2003, and the parties had revealed a large amount of
personal information to each other. They had also met outside of
work hours on two occasions. Ms Allen had sent the complainant an
email birthday card from overseas and had brought back small gifts
for him from her holiday.
The complainant developed feelings for Ms Allen and told Ms
Allen of this. When Ms Allen explained that these feelings
were not reciprocated, the complainant was very upset. He sent her
an email saying, "I am off to secure a length of rope for myself
now." In May 2003 Ms Allen informed her team manager of the
situation.
The Tribunal found that the shortcomings warranted a finding of
"professional misconduct" pursuant to s 100(1)(a) of the Health
Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. It observed the
difference in power between occupational therapists and clients,
noting the professional fiduciary obligation on the occupational
therapist to meet the needs of the client above the therapist's own
needs. Further, because of the difficulty for an occupational
therapist in maintaining objectivity and professional judgement if
a friendship develops, the quality of services provided to a client
may be compromised. The case provided evidence that the nature and
risk of transference is such that when a friendship between
occupational therapist and client ends, the damage to the client
may be quite severe.
The Tribunal ordered that for a period of three years from the
date Ms Allen recommences practice, she must consult with and
comply with any instructions or training given on boundary
identification and maintenance. She was also ordered to pay
$15,000 costs towards the prosecution.
A copy of the Tribunal's decision may be found at www.hpdt.org.nz.