A physiotherapist who administered an unlicensed Botox-like product to a number of clients and was found guilty of poor professional performance has been suspended for three months by the High Court.
High Court president Mr Justice David Barniville confirmed the sanction of Coru, the regulatory body of health and social care professionals, to suspend the Dublin physiotherapist from the register of physiotherapists for three months, starting in October.
Igor Castro, who operates a practice on O’Connell Street in Dublin, appeared before a fitness-to-practise inquiry earlier this year over his use and promotion of Liztox, a Korean botulinum toxin product similar to Botox which is used for aesthetic treatments.
The fitness-to-practise committee found an allegation proven that Mr Castro had administered Liztox to three clients at his practice in October 2023.
READ MORE
The committee also found it proven that the Brazilian native had posted one or more posts on his Instagram account between October and November 2023 promoting the fact that he was administering the Botox-like product to clients.
In the High Court on Monday, Coru solicitor JP McDowell, of Fieldfisher solicitors, said the committee regarded it as a very serious matter “and it goes to the issue of public safety”.
He said mitigating factors were considered including that Mr Castro had “considerable insight into the error of his ways”.
Confirming the suspension to begin in October, Mr Justice Barniville noted that Mr Castro had made a full admission and was very apologetic for what happened.
At the Coru fitness-to-practise committee inquiry last January, the inquiry’s chairwoman, Geraldine Feeney, said the committee made its findings on the basis of Mr Castro’s own admissions and the uncontroverted evidence of a number of witnesses, including an enforcement officer with the Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA).
She said Mr Castro’s actions in administering Liztox when it was outside his scope as a physiotherapist also represented breaches of the profession’s code of professional conduct and ethics.
The committee observed that an expert witness had pointed out that Mr Castro was not legally qualified to administer an unlicensed product which was a “potentially harmful substance”.
Ms Feeney said the physiotherapist had demonstrated extremely poor judgment and brought the profession into disrepute.
She acknowledged that Mr Castro had co-operated fully from the outset with an investigation by the HPRA and subsequently the Coru inquiry and had made complete admissions about his conduct which she said had demonstrated insight into his wrongdoing.
She noted that the committee was satisfied that there was little or no risk that Mr Castro would repeat the conduct in future based on his evidence, insight and statement of regret. She acknowledged that he had provided the inquiry with several references which described him as a “conscientious and good” physiotherapist.
Ms Feeney said the committee was also impressed by the fact that Mr Castro was undertaking continuous education for the purpose of improving his skills and providing physiotherapy services.
