
Health and Disability Commissioner finds breach after disabled woman had socks taped to hands
It's a move that her former carers have now acknowledged was 'not the most ideal of options' and one that has been criticised by Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Rose Hall.
'I consider that restraining her in this way did not preserve her dignity or respect,' Wall said in findings made today after complaints by the woman's new care provider and family.
Hall's findings also explored allegations that the woman's finances had been misused by her carers, and that they'd failed to change her, leaving her soaked in urine.
The woman, who is in her 50s and severely disabled, was transferred from one provider, who had cared for her for the last 25 years, to another in 2023. Neither are named in the findings.
The new provider was concerned that the woman arrived without any medical history paperwork or any other information detailing her care, including specialist appointments or allergy protocols.
Because of this, the new provider said it struggled with the transition as staff lacked understanding of her history and behaviour.
On the day the woman arrived at her new carers, her sleeves were tied together, and her hands were covered with socks, which prompted a complaint to the HDC in February 2023.
In May the same year, the woman's sister also complained about the care her sister had received, and was concerned about socks being used as hand restraints.
'I did question staff why this had been done and they said it was to keep her hands warm,' part of her complaint read.
'On other occasions I have seen [the woman's] hands restrained with socks and bound secure with Sellotape.
'These types of restraint were constantly enforced on [her] to stop her from putting her hands in her mouth.'
The disabled woman's sister also questioned the first care provider's use of their charge's bank account, and claimed that she was often left soaked in urine.
'Most times I went to visit my sister, she was soaking wet, and you could smell the urine…The urine would also be soaked through to her clothing,' the woman claimed. 'Not the most ideal of options'
After the complaint was made, the first provider said it was the first time issues had been raised about the way it handled the woman, who had been in their care for more than two decades.
A spokesperson for the first provider told the HDC that using socks as hand restraints was not something that it endorsed.
'[The woman] has had a longstanding issue with sucking, licking, gnawing, hitting her mouth, and pushing her fist down her mouth to the extent where she would gag and sometimes choke,' the spokesperson said.
The provider also claimed that the woman's sister had said that she didn't care how they stopped her from chewing at her hands, and that a GP had recommended they needed to keep her hands dry.
'While not the most ideal of options, any efforts to use socks have been out of a concern for the safety for [the woman] in a manner that best respects freedom to manoeuvre and manipulate her movements as she pleased whilst minimising risk to her around hand hygiene, skin integrity, and swallowing any bandages,' the provider said.
The provider also denied any misuse of the woman's finances, and not changing her incontinence products to leave her soaked in urine.
The provider said the woman was able to use the toilet herself, and would sometimes urinate in her bed overnight, but she was never left sitting in it, as claimed by her sister.
The sister also alleged the woman was left in common areas with another intellectually disabled patient who was constantly masturbating, and she felt this was neither safe nor appropriate.
However, the provider said that it catered for people with complex challenges and some of them lacked the capacity to know their behaviour was inappropriate.
'However, this is something staff are aware of and they have always been vigilant about these behaviours and address them immediately when they arise, in a safe and appropriate manner,' the provider's response reads. A lack of dignity and respect
The Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner found the first provider had breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights by restraining the woman's hands with socks.
'In my view, this was an inappropriate restraint that did not preserve [the woman's] dignity, and the perceived need for this type of restraint could have been avoided by seeking specialist behavioural support.'
However, it was only the inappropriate hand restraints that Wall was able to determine were a breach of the woman's rights, noting in her report that there wasn't sufficient evidence to explore the claim that the woman was left to sit in her own urine.
As for the claim that the woman's finances had been misused, Wall said this didn't appear to be founded and that the provider's intention had been good and it had been paying out of its own pocket for unfunded personal expenses.
In regard to the claim that the first provider had been slow in handing over its former patient's medical records, Wall found it had not been as forthcoming as it could have been, and lacked communication with the new provider, though this didn't constitute a breach of the code.
Wall recommended that the provider apologise for regarding the hand restraints, but as the first provider is no longer providing residential care she did not recommend any extra training in this area.
- Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice reporter

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

RNZ News
30-06-2025
- RNZ News
Dentist criticised for 'supervised neglect' of some patients
The care of one patient was described as a case of "supervised neglect" over a period of 25 years. Photo: A dentist working in sole practice for three decades has been criticised for sloppy record-keeping and "supervised neglect" of some patients. Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner Dr Vanessa Caldwell has just issued her findings in relation to seven patients of the dentist 'Dr C'. The problems came to light in November 2021, when Dr C had a break from practice and two other dentists treated his patients. Dr Angela McKeefry, an expert advisor to the HDC, described his care of one patient - Ms D - as a case of "supervised neglect" over a period of 25 years. She had about 18 appointments in that time, but never had any X-rays taken, even before having teeth removed. Another dentist who saw her in February 2022 because her front teeth were sore said she was "in complete shock" to learn she had severe periodontal disease, as she had been seeing Dr C for regular cleaning. An X-ray showed dead gum tissue, abscess and "severe bone loss" around some teeth. Dr McKeefry admitted that even with specialist treatment, the patient could still have lost all her upper teeth, but she was "effectively given no opportunity to try and prevent this from happening". "The lack of radiographs, periodontal pocket depth charting, diagnosis, offer of specialist referral or satisfactory clinical notes would be found to be shocking by most dentists." Dr C told the commission that after providing dental care to the community for 30 years "this complaint has been a source of shame and stress for him". He acknowledged his record-keeping was significantly below standard for all these patients and that there were deficiencies in the care provided, and said that he was sorry for this. For many of these patients, the treatment he provided allowed them to keep their teeth for longer than they otherwise would have, he said. He maintained he discussed treatment plans with his patients, but accepted his poor record-keeping meant this could not be confirmed. "Dr C also acknowledged that he should have been more assertive with some patients, setting out holistic, permanent options for treatment as opposed to quick-fix solutions that would only prolong the inevitable." The dentist said he had taken various steps to improve his practice, and has had no complaints since 2021, including doing extra training, working with a supervisor and hiring more staff to do administration. Dr Caldwell said due to the severity of the breaches and number of patients affected, she had considered prosecution. "However, given the measures that have since been put in place by the Dental Council, the time that has elapsed since these events, and that some of the consumers did not support a referral, I have decided not to proceed with a referral to the Director of Proceedings in this instance." Instead, she has recommended Dr C do some additional training, an audit of his records, and apologise to the patients involved. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.


Otago Daily Times
30-06-2025
- Otago Daily Times
Dentist struck off after piercing woman's cheek
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist More complaints about the poor practices of a struck-off dentist have come to light. They include a patient who suffered extreme pain after a piece of tooth was left in his gum, and another who was hospitalised after her cheek was pierced with an airflow polisher. Former Greymouth dentist Bharath Subramani, known as Barry Subramani, was banned by the Dental Council in 2023 from practising for three years after several upheld complaints. 'Total disregard' for patients Today, the Health and Disability Commissioner released an 86-page report focused on three further complaints. Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Caldwell found Subramani breached several aspects of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (the Code) when he provided dental services to the complainants, and has ordered him to apologise. According to the report, a 55-year-old patient, referred to as Mr C in the findings, attended eight dental appointments with Subramani between December 2021 and January 2022, while he was under supervision. A significant amount of treatment was performed, including a tooth extraction. Afterwards Mr C suffered chewing problems and an infection. An 'excessively painful' large lump in his cheek also developed and at the following appointments, he queried Subramani about whether it could be a 'floating piece of tooth'. He told the patient it was his jawbone and reassured him the area was healing well. However, the pain continued and eventually, 'a large piece of tooth came out', where the lump had been. He showed Subramani, who reportedly laughed it off. In relation to Mr C's treatment, Caldwell found Subramani had failed to advise of the potential chewing issues after the extraction, did not order an X-ray when necessary, failed to obtain informed consent for multiple procedures and had incomplete and confusing clinical notes. Mr C told the HDC he was 'very disappointed in the whole experience' with Subramani. He said he complained to prevent the poor treatment of future patients. Another patient visited Subramani urgently in April 2018 as he believed a filling had fallen out and was in pain. The 35-year-old told the HDC that while only one tooth had been bothering him, Subramani worked on three others, saying they needed attention. Subramani also made him a 'type of mouthguard,' he said was required and charged him $1300. His notes said the patient, referred to as Mr B, had needed three fillings, and a bite splint to assist his teeth grinding. Mr B was told more fillings would be needed, for which Subramani quoted him $400. But it turned out to be an exam, scale and polish plus five fillings and he was charged $1425. The man complained to the dental practice, then later the HDC, that he experienced ongoing pain after his treatment with Subramani. 'I have had nothing but trouble since he did this work in 2018, spent thousands of dollars, seen [four] different dentists at different times resulting in [two] of the teeth he worked on ultimately being removed,' he said. Caldwell's findings concerning Mr B included Subramani's use of outdated materials and incomplete procedures, that he failed to properly diagnose or treat infection, and to provide or document clear treatment plans or consent. The third complainant, aged 75 at the time of treatment between March and April 2018, had a tooth removed by Subramani at her initial appointment. After, Subramani told the woman, referred to as Ms A, that she ground her teeth and needed something for it. She disagreed and told the HDC that he was 'quite insistent' and 'very confrontational'. At a subsequent appointment, Ms A returned for a scale and polish. Subramani tried to polish her teeth using the airflow polisher, but it slipped and pierced the tissue of her cheek. She told the HDC that she 'shot upright and could not breathe,' and it felt like a 'choking sensation', which caused her throat, cheek, and neck to swell. Ms A, who was left alone for a few moments, began to hyperventilate, was very upset and frightened and was later taken to hospital by a friend. There, she saw a doctor who was concerned she had surgical emphysema that was 'well up in her face', she told the HDC. She was observed for about 12 hours then sent home. However, she remained sick for about 10 days. She told the HDC she did not choose to have scaling with air polishing, was not informed of the risks or benefits, and subsequently did not give her verbal consent for this treatment Ms A said the incident left her feeling traumatised, and she has been too fearful to visit a dentist since. Among her findings, Caldwell made several concerning Subramani's failure to use the airflow polisher appropriately. It was also found that treatment plans were inappropriate for the condition, there was a lack of explanation and consent, and Subramani did not seek second opinions or proper supervision when required. Again, several breaches were identified. Caldwell's report, which included expert clinical advice, identified a pattern of unsafe practice and poor patient engagement by Subramani. In making her recommendations, she noted the action already taken by the Dental Council. As Subramani was no longer practising, she ordered him to provide a formal apology to the complainants and to provide the HDC with evidence of the training courses he had attended. Caldwell also recommended that Subramani undertake further education and training before he became registered with the Dental Council again, and that the council conduct a competence review. According to the report, the council had referred Subramani to a Professional Conduct Committee in February 2019 after a string of complaints. The committee went on to find that a charge should be brought against him before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. In February 2022, Subramani admitted and was found guilty of a charge of professional misconduct at the tribunal hearing relating to his treatment of 11 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. The charge included 39 incidents of misconduct, which did not include the three complaints referred to in the HDC report. As a result, he was fined, ordered to pay costs and deregistered, which he appealed. Then, the following month, the HDC made public interest referrals to the Dental Council regarding two of the complainants in the report. The HDC had become aware that Subramani was still able to practise subject to supervision by a dentist appointed by the council in 2020, until an appeal made by him to the High Court had been heard. At that time, HDC had not received the third complaint in the report but it has since been referred. In November 2023, the council confirmed that Subramani's appeal had been heard and that the High Court had upheld the decision to deregister him. It ruled that he was not to practise for three years from October 2023.


Otago Daily Times
30-06-2025
- Otago Daily Times
South Island dentist struck off after piercing woman's cheek
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist More complaints about the poor practices of a struck-off dentist have come to light. They include a patient who suffered extreme pain after a piece of tooth was left in his gum, and another who was hospitalised after her cheek was pierced with an airflow polisher. Former Greymouth dentist Bharath Subramani, known as Barry Subramani, was banned by the Dental Council in 2023 from practising for three years after several upheld complaints. 'Total disregard' for patients Today, the Health and Disability Commissioner released an 86-page report focused on three further complaints. Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Caldwell found Subramani breached several aspects of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (the Code) when he provided dental services to the complainants, and has ordered him to apologise. According to the report, a 55-year-old patient, referred to as Mr C in the findings, attended eight dental appointments with Subramani between December 2021 and January 2022, while he was under supervision. A significant amount of treatment was performed, including a tooth extraction. Afterwards Mr C suffered chewing problems and an infection. An 'excessively painful' large lump in his cheek also developed and at the following appointments, he queried Subramani about whether it could be a 'floating piece of tooth'. He told the patient it was his jawbone and reassured him the area was healing well. However, the pain continued and eventually, 'a large piece of tooth came out', where the lump had been. He showed Subramani, who reportedly laughed it off. In relation to Mr C's treatment, Caldwell found Subramani had failed to advise of the potential chewing issues after the extraction, did not order an X-ray when necessary, failed to obtain informed consent for multiple procedures and had incomplete and confusing clinical notes. Mr C told the HDC he was 'very disappointed in the whole experience' with Subramani. He said he complained to prevent the poor treatment of future patients. Another patient visited Subramani urgently in April 2018 as he believed a filling had fallen out and was in pain. The 35-year-old told the HDC that while only one tooth had been bothering him, Subramani worked on three others, saying they needed attention. Subramani also made him a 'type of mouthguard,' he said was required and charged him $1300. His notes said the patient, referred to as Mr B, had needed three fillings, and a bite splint to assist his teeth grinding. Mr B was told more fillings would be needed, for which Subramani quoted him $400. But it turned out to be an exam, scale and polish plus five fillings and he was charged $1425. The man complained to the dental practice, then later the HDC, that he experienced ongoing pain after his treatment with Subramani. 'I have had nothing but trouble since he did this work in 2018, spent thousands of dollars, seen [four] different dentists at different times resulting in [two] of the teeth he worked on ultimately being removed,' he said. Caldwell's findings concerning Mr B included Subramani's use of outdated materials and incomplete procedures, that he failed to properly diagnose or treat infection, and to provide or document clear treatment plans or consent. The third complainant, aged 75 at the time of treatment between March and April 2018, had a tooth removed by Subramani at her initial appointment. After, Subramani told the woman, referred to as Ms A, that she ground her teeth and needed something for it. She disagreed and told the HDC that he was 'quite insistent' and 'very confrontational'. At a subsequent appointment, Ms A returned for a scale and polish. Subramani tried to polish her teeth using the airflow polisher, but it slipped and pierced the tissue of her cheek. She told the HDC that she 'shot upright and could not breathe,' and it felt like a 'choking sensation', which caused her throat, cheek, and neck to swell. Ms A, who was left alone for a few moments, began to hyperventilate, was very upset and frightened and was later taken to hospital by a friend. There, she saw a doctor who was concerned she had surgical emphysema that was 'well up in her face', she told the HDC. She was observed for about 12 hours then sent home. However, she remained sick for about 10 days. She told the HDC she did not choose to have scaling with air polishing, was not informed of the risks or benefits, and subsequently did not give her verbal consent for this treatment Ms A said the incident left her feeling traumatised, and she has been too fearful to visit a dentist since. Among her findings, Caldwell made several concerning Subramani's failure to use the airflow polisher appropriately. It was also found that treatment plans were inappropriate for the condition, there was a lack of explanation and consent, and Subramani did not seek second opinions or proper supervision when required. Again, several breaches were identified. Caldwell's report, which included expert clinical advice, identified a pattern of unsafe practice and poor patient engagement by Subramani. In making her recommendations, she noted the action already taken by the Dental Council. As Subramani was no longer practising, she ordered him to provide a formal apology to the complainants and to provide the HDC with evidence of the training courses he had attended. Caldwell also recommended that Subramani undertake further education and training before he became registered with the Dental Council again, and that the council conduct a competence review. According to the report, the council had referred Subramani to a Professional Conduct Committee in February 2019 after a string of complaints. The committee went on to find that a charge should be brought against him before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. In February 2022, Subramani admitted and was found guilty of a charge of professional misconduct at the tribunal hearing relating to his treatment of 11 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. The charge included 39 incidents of misconduct, which did not include the three complaints referred to in the HDC report. As a result, he was fined, ordered to pay costs and deregistered, which he appealed. Then, the following month, the HDC made public interest referrals to the Dental Council regarding two of the complainants in the report. The HDC had become aware that Subramani was still able to practise subject to supervision by a dentist appointed by the council in 2020, until an appeal made by him to the High Court had been heard. At that time, HDC had not received the third complaint in the report but it has since been referred. In November 2023, the council confirmed that Subramani's appeal had been heard and that the High Court had upheld the decision to deregister him. It ruled that he was not to practise for three years from October 2023.