NZPA - An Auckland chiropractor has been found guilty of malpractice after telling a a woman she had a degenerative spinal problem that needed expensive treatment when she visited him with a sore elbow.

In April 2007, Sally Clegg went to Dr Sean Michael Parker after injuring her elbow. She was told she should get a full spinal X-ray, but was offered no immediate treatment for the elbow.

After the X-ray was done, Dr Parker said the only adequate treatment was a prolonged spinal correction treatment costing $3700.

Dr Parker rang her at home after she decided against the treatment, warning her that she would be in a wheelchair within a year.

Ms Clegg said she did not need the treatment, as she did other exercise and was not in pain, and could not afford it.

However, she agreed to another appointment, at which she was pressured into signing a contract for the $3700 treatment.

Unable to pay for the treatment, and not eligible for finance through a finance company, she told the receptionist she had changed her mind, which the receptionist said was all right. She also decided to get a second opinion from a GP.

After further pressure, Dr Parker's lawyer threatened her with recovery of the $3700 via debt collectors unless she paid $1000 to settle the matter.

Ms Clegg complained to the Chiropractic Board and then the Health and Disability Commissioner, and eventually Dr Parker stopped trying to claim the money.

Another patient with neck pain had a similar experience with Dr Parker, who pushed the same spinal treatment option.

The patient, called Mr E in the decision, wanted to cancel the treatment before it was finished when there was no improvement.

He took the case to the Disputes Tribunal without success, meaning he still has to pay FAI Finance for the full treatment at 18 percent interest, or a total of around $5700.

He was then contacted by the Health and Disability Commissioner who was already investigating the other case, and Mr E laid a complaint with the commissioner in August 2008.

The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found that Dr Parker exploited his position of power and trust, gave inadequate information about treatment, pressured patients into treatment they did not need, and had an unacceptable pre-payment scheme.

Dr Parker accepted that his actions amounted to professional misconduct.

A submission for Dr Parker said neither complainant was physically harmed; prepaid schemes had not been used for long in his practice; he had not appeared before a disciplinary body before; and he had expressed remorse.

The tribunal ordered Dr Parker be suspended for 18 months and be subject to a number of undertakings and training before he could resume practising.

He also had to be supervised, and give an assessment of his mental health.

No fine was imposed as he had very limited means, although the tribunal would have considered a $5000 fine if he had been in a position to meet it.

Dr Parker, who was receiving legal aid, was ordered to pay $5000 in costs.