Doctor cleared after striking infant in bite incident, tribunal rules 'reflex' response

A health profession watchdog has scrutinised how many times a doctor struck a “grizzly” infant patient after being bitten, and the level of force used.

The doctor told the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal they “patted him firmly” on the lower back, while three nurses gave differing accounts, including that the practitioner had “struck him twice, quite hard”.

A tribunal decision released this week suppressed the identities of all involved and outlined that the doctor had been charged with professional misconduct following the 2022 incident.

At an earlier hearing into the matter, the tribunal heard evidence from three nurses who were in the room during the incident, the doctor, and the child’s mother.

The subsequent decision noted the doctor had performed an invasive procedure on the baby one morning in 2022.

That evening, the infant’s parents called the hospital because the boy’s stitches had come undone and his wound had opened.

The parents brought the baby back to the hospital and waited outside while the doctor treated the boy in a recovery room.

The first nurse said she saw the doctor pick the infant out of his pushchair and cuddle him as the boy continued to cry.

Then she saw the infant bite the doctor on the shoulder, to which the doctor responded: “We don’t bite here”.

She said the doctor gave the baby “one little slap”, according to the decision.

The baby was startled by this and his crying became more intense. The nurse recalled that the doctor then placed him on a bed.

She couldn’t remember the force by which the baby was hit and, under cross-examination, admitted she didn’t really take on board what had happened until it was raised as an issue later.

‘Get this child away from me’

The second nurse said she saw the infant try to bite the doctor a couple of times before he was able to sink his teeth in, and the doctor “struck him twice, quite hard”, the decision said.

She recalled the doctor saying, “I hope he hasn’t drawn blood” before putting the baby on the bed.

The nurse quickly picked the child up, fearing he might roll off, and said the doctor told her not to let the baby bite her, too.

She said she held the infant while the doctor applied a bandage to the child’s wound.

The nurse told the tribunal that because the hits were loud enough for her to hear when the baby was fully clothed, she believed there was more of a slap or “whack” than a pat, the decision said.

She said after the infant was returned to his parents, the nurses had a brief discussion about what they had seen and the issue was referred to their manager.

The third nurse said she saw the infant bite the doctor and that the doctor slapped him on the nappy and said “no biting” before the boy again bit the doctor.

She remembered the doctor hitting the child a second time, again on the bottom over his nappy and saying, “Get this child away from me”.

Both the second and third nurses described the doctor’s actions as a “reflex”.

Doctor’s evidence

The doctor told the tribunal the “grizzly”, “grumpy” infant was sitting on their right hip when he took his first bite, and the doctor was surprised, but not hurt.

But when the doctor shifted the child into a breastfeeding position, he took a second “painful” bite of the physician’s inner arm.

The doctor’s evidence was that they set the infant on the edge of a trolley, holding him by the waist, squatted down to his eye level and patted him firmly on the back.

The doctor described this as a “haptic” technique to get the child to make eye contact while they gently repeated words to the effect of “no, do not bite”.

The physician denied using force that was more than a pat or patting the baby more than once.

The doctor was shocked to learn that a complaint had been raised but said that, over the years, they had not had a good working relationship with some of the nursing staff.

The child’s mother said she and her husband had nothing but praise for the doctor, even after hearing their infant had been struck twice, and did not support disciplinary action.

The tribunal found that the doctor’s behaviour was in breach of the standards of the medical profession and likely to discredit it.

However, it found the smack was a “reflexive” response to being bitten, with a degree of force that was “not great”.

The act was not serious enough to require disciplinary action, the decision said, and the charge of misconduct against the doctor was dismissed.

Ella Scott-Fleming has been a journalist for three years and previously worked at the Otago Daily Times, Gore Ensign and Metro Magazine. She has an interest in court and general reporting. She’s currently based in Auckland covering justice-related stories.