Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS cautions David Gitonga for two years over boundary breaches
A physiotherapist received a two-year caution after an HCPTS panel found professional-boundary breaches but no sexual motivation.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 13 August 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026
Warning (formally warned) — 2 years
Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction
What does “formally warned” mean?
A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.
Concerning David Gitonga, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH98608).
Decision date: 13 August 2025 · Hearing started 11 August 2025 and ended 13 August 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that David Gitonga breached professional boundaries with a service user, although it did not find sexual motivation. It found he had remediated, shown insight and posed a very low risk of repetition, but imposed a two-year caution to uphold public confidence and professional standards.
Charges
The allegation was that David Gitonga failed to maintain professional boundaries with a service user by hugging her, tapping her bottom, grabbing her waist from behind and saying words to the effect that he liked her. Sexual motivation or conduct sexual in nature was also alleged.
Findings
The panel found the boundary breaches proved and found misconduct, but did not find that the conduct was sexually motivated or sexual in nature. It found remediation, insight and a very low risk of repetition, so there was no personal impairment, but found impairment on public-interest grounds. It imposed a two-year caution order.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
is of previous good regulatory character, with no referrals prior or subsequent to Service User A’s concerns being raised; recognised his error and apologised to Service User A shortly after the incident (by email) and again in oral evidence before the Panel; had taken steps to remediate his conduct such as undertaking training and implementing a formal chaperone process in his practice; and engaged in all stages of the regulatory process.
Aggravating factors
suffered emotional harm as a result of the Registrant’s actions; and she was a lone female, in circumstances where she was unaware of the presence of anyone else in the remote clinic location.
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.