Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel suspends Lukasz Osipowicz over sexually motivated touching
An HCPTS panel suspended physiotherapist Lukasz Osipowicz for 12 months after finding he touched a client's breasts and nipples without consent and for his own sexual gratification.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 14 November 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year
Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.
Concerning Lukasz Osipowicz, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH123188).
Decision date: 14 November 2025 · Hearing started 10 November 2025 and ended 14 November 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that physiotherapist Lukasz Osipowicz touched a client's breasts and nipples without consent during a massage and that the touching was sexually motivated. It found misconduct and current impairment on both the personal and public components. The panel suspended him for 12 months and imposed an interim suspension to cover the appeal period.
Charges
During a massage appointment on 4 February 2023, Mr Osipowicz touched Service User A's breasts and nipples. The conduct was alleged to be sexual in nature and sexually motivated, to amount to misconduct, and to impair his fitness to practise.
Findings
The panel found that Mr Osipowicz touched Service User A's breasts and nipples during the massage. It found the touching was sexual in nature, without consent or legitimate clinical justification, and was sexually motivated for his own sexual gratification. The panel found misconduct and current impairment on both the personal and public components.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
There was an element of breach of trust; emotional harm had been caused to Service User A; there was no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation on the part of the Registrant.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.