Kern v General Osteopathic Council

Kern v General Osteopathic Council

The appellant's conduct in pursuing a sexual relationship with a patient constituted a gross abuse of professional position and was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration; the PCC's reasoning and decision to remove the appellant from the register were within the reasonable band of sanctions and adequately explained.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Kern; Respondent: General Osteopathic Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Misconduct, Professional Boundaries, Sanctions, Appeal Procedure
Professional Regulation Health Law Sexual Misconduct Professional Boundaries Sanctions Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Kern

Appellant

General Osteopathic Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the PCC was wrong to find charge 6 proved
  2. 2 Whether the sanction of removal from the register was excessive or wrong

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's conduct in pursuing a sexual relationship with a patient constituted a gross abuse of professional position and was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration; the PCC's reasoning and decision to remove the appellant from the register were within the reasonable band of sanctions and adequately explained.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's name to remain removed from the register of osteopaths