"I didn't know if she was bringing the kitchen knife or coming to yell at me," a doctor said after the jilted wife of the man she'd been having an affair with booked an appointment with her. 

"I got very scared of this person coming to see me and confronting me." 

She then had to tell her boss she'd been messaging the woman's husband on Facebook for weeks and it would be inappropriate for her to then consult his wife as a patient. 

Earlier that morning the man had revealed to his family that he'd been having an affair and would be leaving his wife for the family doctor. 

Upset, angry and incapable of going to work the wife booked an appointment to a doctor hoping to obtain a medical certificate to provide her employer. 

She didn't specifically request the woman her husband had been having an affair with. 

"I was so fixated on getting the medical certificate, I remember thinking she'll give me one. I won't have to be humiliated more than necessary because she already knows the story." 

It's the second day of a four-day hearing in front the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal in Nelson where the GP's conduct is under the stethoscope. 

Today the doctor and her patient-cum-lover both took the stand. 

The man she had an affair with told the Tribunal about his relationship with the family doctor, while his wife sat three chairs away from his mistress in the public gallery. 

One of the key points of the doctor's defence is that no sexual relationship occurred until she'd transferred the man to another GP, and they'd both left their respective partners. 

However, she'd continued to remain the registered doctor for his wife and children despite admitting to having at least an emotional affair with the man. 

Regardless, the Medical Council's code of ethics are clear on the rules concerning doctor and patient relationships. 

"It is also wrong for a doctor to enter into a relationship with a former patient or a close relative of a patient. This breaches the trust of the patient placed in the doctor," that code states. 

The doctor in this case moved the man to another GP before she claims their relationship escalated into a sexual one several months later. 

"Basically fine to txt etc as long as u are not my patient," the doctor said in a message, planning a way to make their relationship ethical after several weeks of messaging back and forth. 

"You were giving him the go-ahead," Medical Council lawyer Dale La Hood said to her during cross-examination today. 

"The only way to read it is, that we're fine to carry on doing what we're doing, as long as you're no longer my patient. This can only be taken as you want this to continue." 

The Medical Council code of ethics states "It is never acceptable if the doctor-patient relationship has ended for the sole purpose of initiating a sexual relationship." 

Yesterday the man's wife told the Tribunal that the morning after his infidelity was revealed he told her it wasn't just about the sex, but that he was in love. 

Today, lawyers acting on behalf of the Medical Council and those representing the doctor, zeroed in on that statement. 

The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal met for a second day in Nelson to decide the fate of a GP who had an affair with her patient. Photo / Jeremy WIlkinson 

'Just (Facebook) friends' 

The man, who cannot be named, told the Tribunal how he'd been suffering from depression and just needed someone to talk to, so reached out on Facebook to his family doctor. 

She accepted his friend request, despite the warning from a colleague that it might have been inappropriate, and they began messaging regularly on the platform and meeting up in person several times. 

"An escalating tone of flirtation can be seen as the messages progress," La Hood told the Tribunal. 

After she returned from a two-week to trip to Thailand the man informed his wife that he'd found someone else and that it was more than just sex, he was in love. 

The next morning she found out it was her family doctor. 

The jilted wife, too stressed to face the idea of going to work, then booked an appointment with a doctor to obtain a medical certificate to give to her employer. 

She was inadvertently booked in to see the woman who'd been having an affair with her husband but did not request her specifically. 

The doctor then messaged the man and told him that his wife had requested a doctor's appointment – a breach of doctor and patient confidentiality. 

This was the breach that formed the basis of the wife's complaint to the commissioner several years ago. 

Today the man told the Tribunal that he and the doctor were just friends, but confessed that he "liked her". 

"I hadn't been enjoying the relationship [with his wife] – but hadn't had the strength to leave." 

"It was one of the hardest decisions I've ever made." 

The man told the Tribunal how overwhelming and stressful it was for him when his wife was angry and confronting him about the affair. 

"I remember question after question, pressurised, asking who, when where and so on." 

He remained adamant that no sexual relationship occurred prior to January the following year, after he'd already left his wife. 

He confirmed that he was now living with the doctor and they'd moved in together since leaving their respective partners. 

Lawyer Dale La Hood pointed the man to Facebook messages between the pair that referred to the doctor wearing a bikini. 

"Where do you live the car is running ready to go?" The man said. 

"Is that the sort of thing you'd be talking to a male friend about?" La Hood asked him. 

"If he was in a bikini maybe … it was just humour." 

Chair of the Tribunal Theo Baker asked the man whether he would have made those comments about another woman's bikini if his wife was in the room. 

"It's hard to say," he replied. 

"Is that the sort of way you might to talk to another woman the company of others? It seems to me that you're flirting with her at that point, aren't you?" Dr Baker asked. "Are those the kinds of comments you make to friends?" 

"To the ones I know well ... I guess." 

"Would you have felt comfortable for your wife to have read the communication you were having?" 

"No, I would not." 

Professional conduct 

The doctor took the stand after her lover, though he didn't stay around to watch, and remained adamant that no sexual relationship occurred while the man's wife and children were her patients. 

"I have been consistent in my statements because I've been telling the truth." 

She went on to say that she didn't not end her doctor patient relationship with the man so that she could pursue a sexual relationship with him. 

"I struggle with the suggestion that developing a friendship and relationship could have discredited the profession," she said. 

"I don't think my relationship with a former patient would be frowned upon by my peers." 

However, she said that she could have done a few things differently like also transferring the man's wife and children to another doctor when her relationship with her patient started to escalate. 

"A total ban on any subsequent relationship would be unfair and unrealistic, especially in small communities." 

"I do not believe my relationship with him and as it developed was unprofessional. " 

The doctor told the Tribunal there had been no sexual contact between her and the man before January of 2019. 

"I would not say that we were in love, I liked him but we were still getting to know each other." 

The doctor claimed she was naive with Facebook but that she was aware that social media contact with a patient was potentially an ethical issue. 

Despite this their relationship continued to develop primarily online. 

"I did feel I was possibly developing some feeling; he was funny and witty." 

The boss 

The doctor's boss, a co-owner of the practice, was also called as a witness and told the Tribunal how his employee had informed him of the relationship she'd been having with her patient and how the man's wife had booked an appointment to see her. 

"My impression was that she [the wife] was going to confront her." 

"She [the doctor] seemed to me in a state of panic or shock. For her to come into my office in this state was unusual." 

He then told the Tribunal he'd stepped in and met with the wife directly and his primary concern on the day was her welfare. 

It was only afterwards that he entered into discussions with his employee about the appropriateness of the relationship she'd been having with her now former patient. 

"We advised that we disapproved of the situation and that it was inappropriate for her to have any further relationship." 

"She explained that he was a former patient, and that the relationship was non-sexual." 

The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal met at the Rutherford Hotel in Nelson today. Photo / Tracy Neal 

"She was keen to point out that it was a non-sexual relationship." 

The co-owner of the practice said the Medical Council's code of ethics were unclear on the rules considering his employee and the man had had only limited consultations and they were not of a psychological nature. 

"On the one side we had reassurances that there was only a non-sexual relationship. On the other hand, there was an accusation from the wife that there was an affair. That made us uncertain." 

"I said this was not a good situation professionally." 

The co-owner of the practice said that after seeking advice his understanding was that he did not need to report his employee to the Medical Council, but he suggested that she notify them herself before they found out from someone else. 

The Tribunal 

The Medical Council has a sub-committee of professional conduct committee members, who deal solely with notifications involving allegations of sexual/professional boundary notifications. 

Its members collect information, meet with people it considers relevant, and invite the doctor to meet with the committee. 

The committee then makes a decision based on the options available, which range from laying a charge in the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, taking an educative or counselling approach, or taking no further action. 

In the first instance a complaint must be laid with the Health and Disability Commissioner who will make a call about whether to progress a complaint about a health practitioner. 

In this case the complainant was the wife of the man the GP had an affair with. 

The basis of her complaint was that the doctor – also her and her children's GP – had breached patient privacy. 

- by Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice