Sydney gynecologist under investigation accuses patients of lying

A Sydney, N.S., gynecologist is not backing down from his suggestion there was collusionbetween the people who have made misconductallegations against him.

Dr. Manivasan Moodley answeredquestions Friday on the fifth day of a College of Physicians and Surgeons hearing about his behaviour.

Two female patients have accused Moodley of incompetence and making inappropriate comments during appointments one week apart in 2017. They testified earlier this week and said they don't know each other.

Moodley's assistant, Angela MacKenzie, testified Wednesday that she believed the office of another physician, Dr. Erin MacLellan, who was also Moodley's supervisor, had orchestrated the women's complaints over professional jealousy.

Marjorie Hickey, the lawyer representing the college, asked Moodley Friday about a letter he wrote to the governing body following the complaints about his conduct. She said in the letter, he claimed his two patients, as well as MacLellan and her receptionist, committed perjury in their sworn affidavits.

When questioned by Hickey, Moodley said he had no direct evidence of his claim. But he said he believed it to be the case.

Hickey said MacLellanremoved herself from supervising Moodleyafter his complaint was launched.

As a foreign-trained doctor, Moodley is required to work under a supervisor and a sponsor, and pass all Canadian licensing and certification exams before being granted a full licence. In January, there was outcry in Sydney after Moodley lost his sponsor and about 80 people rallied outside the Cape Breton Regional Hospital in support of him.

He was able to continue working because he had a new supervisor and sponsor.

During her cross-examination, Hickey returned to questions about Moodley's treatment of C.D., who has alleged Moodley made inappropriate comments to her during her third appointment with him. The woman's name is protected by a publication ban and the moniker used for her doesn't represent her initials.

The woman told the panel Moodley said he found a mass during an ultrasound and that she left her appointment thinking it was cancer, though she later learned it was an ovarian cyst. She also said after leaving the hospital, she reported her concerns from the parking lot about Moodley's conduct.

Moodley went into detail about how physicians handle cases where someone is found to have abnormal cells or pre-cancerous cells on their cervix. He said he would have explained all this to C.D. and didn't ask about a further internal exam, which she alleged.

"There is no way I would have ever mentioned cancer, this is not cancer," he said.

Testimony from psychologist

The panel also heard from a forensic psychologist who Moodley's team tasked with conducting a psychological sexual assessment of Moodleyin the fall of 2018.

Dr. Brad Kelln, who has worked as apsychologist for more than 20 years and often evaluates people at the East Coast Forensic Hospital in Dartmouth, N.S., was sworn in as an expert in sexual and violence risk.

He said he spentabout six hours with Moodley, about two-thirds of which was spent interviewing him. He put together a report after interviewing Moodley's wife, reviewing references letters from Moodley's friends and colleagues and compiling the results of tests,including a sexual functioning test, a borderline personality questionnaire and tests designed to identify when people are being deceptive in their answers.

He concluded there was "absolutely no evidence that Dr. Moodley has any sexual attitudes or patterns of behaviour that would put anyone at risk."

"Generally, you find something. The allegations are of such a nature that it would be odd if it was the only time he'd ever done that. There would be other times people would have suspected or felt uncomfortable around him," Kelln told the hearing.

Shane Belbin, counsel for Moodley, asked what conclusions he would draw from the finding that the allegations were inconsistent with his personality and his professional reputation.

Kelln said he doesn't determine if someone has done anything they're accused of. His focus is evaluating whether someone poses a risk to the public.

"Given his characteristics, his traits, his long-standing relationship, his professional standing, including his insight into the turmoil this has caused for him professionally and his desire to not ever work in the absence of a chaperone, I feel like there's basically no risk moving forward from this point," he told the hearing.

Relevancy of testimony questioned

But Hickey and panel chair Ray Larkin questioned whether that evidence was even relevant to the matter at hand.

Larkin said it could have been useful if they had been trying to evaluate whether a suspended doctor posed any future risks,but he said it doesn't appear to have any bearing on determining if the allegations in this case are true.

The hearing has been adjourned until March 31.