Victorian physiotherapist disqualified for six years for sexually touching a patient

28 Jun 2024

A Victorian physiotherapist has been disqualified for six years and made the subject of a prohibition order for asking a female patient to unnecessarily remove her underwear during treatment, and touching her in a sexual manner.

The Physiotherapy Board of Australia (the Board) referred Mr Byron Espedido to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) for his behaviour with respect to a female patient in 2017.

On 20 October 2022, the tribunal found that:

• during his first consultation with the patient, Mr Espedido failed to gain consent to stay in the room while she undressed; and
• during his second consultation with the patient, Mr Espedido:
  • asked her to remove her underwear when it was not justified or reasonably required
  • unnecessarily exposed her genitals when it was not justified or reasonably required, and
  • touched her vulva without clinical indication of justification. The tribunal further found that this was intentional, sexual, inappropriate, and for a non-clinical purpose.

Following the tribunal making findings of fact, there were two further hearings. On 30 January 2023, the tribunal found that Mr Espedido’s behaviour over the two consultations was conduct inconsistent with Mr Espedido being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession:

‘All of the circumstances involving the second consultation were part of a single course of conduct involving a gross boundary violation and gross abuse of trust,’ the tribunal stated.

On 13 September 2023, the tribunal ordered Mr Espedido be:

• reprimanded
• disqualified from applying for registration for six years, and
• prohibited from providing any health service involving consultation in person with any client or patient (whether as an employee, contractor, or volunteer) until he is registered as a health practitioner under the National Law.

The tribunal commented on the impact Mr Espedido’s behaviour had on the patient, and his disciplinary history, agreeing that a significant period of disqualification was warranted.

It stated that it considered the ‘headline’ disqualification period ought to be eight years, but reduced this to six years to reflect that Mr Espedido had been out of practice for a period of time.

The tribunal did not agree with the Board’s submission that Mr Espedido ought to be prohibited from providing all health services, instead tailoring an order balancing the risk it considered Mr Espedido to pose, against the skilled work it considered Mr Espedido could do in health services, without posing that risk.

Read the tribunal’s full decisions on factual findings, characterisation and determinations on the AustLII website.