A mental health nurse’s almost half-century career ended when he was found to have been sexually intimate with a patient in his care.
But McPhail denied any physical contact with the patient, instead claiming the patient’s mental health diagnoses meant she was ‘‘prone to fabrication’’.
‘‘I gave truthful evidence on this matter to the tribunal,’’ he said.
‘‘I never have and I never will agree with the patient’s account. However, I have no option but to accept the tribunal’s decision.’’
The tribunal’s decision, which was made last year, but only publicly released this week, stated the patient ‘‘clearly knew a number of McPhail’s personal matters’’.
It found that this helped to establish that sexual and intimate activity had occurred.
According to the decision, McPhail had been employed by the Southern District Health Board (and its predecessors) in Dunedin since 1977.
He had worked for the Emergency Psychiatric Services (EPS) team since 2010 and had previously worked as a registered nurse in an acute psychiatric inpatient unit.
The disciplinary charge followed allegations McPhail had breached boundaries, including sexual intimacy with a patient whom he had cared for in his capacity as a mental health nurse, over four months.
His meeting with the patient, initially in police cells and then in hospital, was followed by the two meeting in person on several occasions, including at a carpark, a retail store and a motel.
While the patient said that they were engaged in sexual intimacy and provided detailed evidence of what had occurred, McPhail denied any physical aspect to their encounters.
He instead claimed he had been blackmailed and that he was trying to placate the woman to stop her from making false accusations of sexual assault.
The unnamed patient, who had been using mental health services since she was a teenager, had been admitted to hospital, discharged and then readmitted on a date redacted from the decision.
There was no dispute the pair met in person after a text message exchange or that they had phone conversations, communicated via Facebook’s ‘‘secret chat’’, and had further conversations via Messenger and SMS.
Neither was it in dispute that McPhail either lent or gave the patient various items.
However, the nature and circumstances of the ongoing contact were disputed.
The woman disclosed to hospital staff when readmitted later that she had been ‘‘involved in a relationship’’ with McPhail, and she was then interviewed by the Southern DHB.
McPhail was advised of the allegations, and when the DHB’s proposed investigation process was explained to him, he took special leave.
McPhail then retired from EPS.
The DHB could not complete its investigation after McPhail resigned.
The patient then reported the matter to the Health and Disability Commissioner, and the matter was then referred to the director of proceedings, who laid the charge of professional misconduct.
— Tracy Neal, Open Justice
Advertisement
