Medical professional drove car at colleague and made lewd comments, hearing rules

Benedict Doree made sexual remarks and gestures towards female workers, fitness to practise panel finds

A medical professional bullied and drove his car at one colleague and sexually harassed another at a hospital, a hearing has found.

Benedict Doree had denied bullying a colleague and striking him with his car at James Cook University Hospital, and making lewd sexual remarks and gestures towards a female colleague, while working for a private company which makes prosthetics.

But a fitness to practise hearing held by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) found the majority of allegations against Mr Doree, of Ingleby Barwick, to be proved.

They included driving his car at a colleague while both were on their way to work at Otto Bock, based at the hospital, in May 2011.

A raft of verbal abuse - including lewd remarks about a picture of his colleague’s wife and a string of offensive insults - were found to have taken place after the HCPC panel said it found evidence from the unnamed victim to be “truthful”.

It was also found that Mr Doree, who worked as a prosthetist for 25 years, sexually harassed a female member of staff employed by James Cook Hospital - which included him laying on the floor while she was working on a treadmill, gesturing with his belt, and saying “get on that and ride that baby”.

The panel also found that Mr Doree had grabbed her head and thrusted his pelvis towards her face on at least three occasions, made lewd comments, and mimicked cupping a pair of breasts when discussing 17 and 18-year-old girls who had attended a birthday party for his daughter.

Mr Doree and his representative at the hearing, held at the Thistle Hotel in Middlesbrough, had claimed that the allegations against him had been fabricated.

But Gordon Sutehall, who chaired the panel, said: “Mr Doree had made a suggestion that there had been professional jealousy from Colleague A.

“The panel is unable to accept Mr Doree’s contention that Colleague A had made his claims up.”

Mr Sutehall also said the female colleague was “a compelling witness”.

“She obviously found giving evidence difficult," he continued. "The panel has found no reason for her to fabricate the claims."

Allegations that Mr Doree had driven in an intimidating manner while the male victim, who gave his evidence from behind a screen and was referred to as Colleague A throughout, was cycling to work were not proven.

And claims that Mr Doree repeatedly glared at Colleague A, and made chicken noises whenever he spoke, were also not proven.

The panel also did not find that Mr Doree had inappropriately massaged the shoulders of the female colleague, or that he had taken a photograph of her with his mobile phone whilst her legs were apart in a hoist during a training session.

Mr Doree’s fitness to practice will now be decided in July, after the HCPC hearing was adjourned.