Osteopath Escapes Serious Consequences After Unconsented Treatment Causes Patient’s Lung to Collapse
An osteopath has received a formal warning after performing a treatment on a West End performer without her consent, resulting in her lung collapsing. The incident highlights the importance of informed consent and professional conduct in healthcare.
Timothy Gale, who was the lead practitioner at Fix Me Clinic in London, did not inform the actress—whose identity remains confidential due to legal reasons—that a collapsed lung was a potential risk associated with dry needling. Despite this, he proceeded with the treatment, which led to her hospitalization.
A tribunal heard that the actress had not given her consent for the treatment, which involves inserting a thin needle into tight or irritated muscle tissue. A panel found Mr Gale’s actions to be unacceptable professional conduct.
The actress, who has appeared in West End musicals, visited Mr Gale in January 2024 while suffering from back pain following an injury during a pantomime the previous month. She had previously seen him in 2019 and 2022, describing their relationship as positive.
During her second session in 2024, Mr Gale decided to administer dry needling, believing it would be beneficial. However, after returning home, she experienced shortness of breath and pain that spread across her side to her front, worsening over time.
When she reported chest pain while breathing, Mr Gale advised her to rest. 
As the pain intensified later that day, she sought emergency care, where an X-ray and CT scan revealed an acute pneumothorax—a condition that can be life-threatening.
Mr Gale admitted that his familiarity with the patient had overshadowed his professionalism, acknowledging that he had not obtained proper consent. He admitted that he should have informed her about the collapsed lung and advised her to seek emergency medical treatment.
However, he argued that serious consequences of dry needling are rare, occurring in less than 0.1% of cases. The actress mentioned that she might have undergone dry needling before, when she injured her ankle in 2019.
Mr Gale’s biography page on his clinic’s website states: ‘He believes good communication is very important in healthcare and strives to make his patients feel as comfortable as they can in the clinic environment.’ It also describes him as ‘an open-minded, holistic and patient practitioner; involved in promoting health and self-management in all patients from all backgrounds and ages.’
According to the website, Mr Gale has a background in musical theatre, which has led to his involvement in treating members of the performing arts industry for various conditions. It adds: ‘Tim uses his natural empathy and instinct to look beyond each patient’s symptoms and treat the primary cause of pain.’
A panel from the General Osteopathic Council ruled that Mr Gale’s behavior constituted unacceptable professional conduct. They noted that he allowed his friendship with the patient to influence his treatment, putting her at ‘serious risk of harm.’
The tribunal recognized that Mr Gale fully admitted to the allegations and expressed genuine remorse for his actions.
Andrew Harvey, chair of the panel, stated: ‘The Committee took into account the submissions of both Counsel and exercised its judgment to assess whether the actions of [Mr Gale] amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. It noted [in his] evidence that his familiarity with [the patient] had superseded his professionalism. As a result, he failed to obtain her fully informed consent to dry needling and this was a breach of A4 of the Standards. In addition, his failure to advise [the patient] to seek medical assistance was in breach of A5 of the Standards. Having regard to all these factors, the Committee found that the facts found proved support a finding of unacceptable professional conduct.’
The tribunal decided to admonish Mr Gale, citing the incident as isolated and noting his previously good character. Mr Harvey added: ‘The Committee accepts that this experience has had a profound effect on [Mr Gale] and that, as time has passed, he has learned from his mistakes and made a genuine effort to remediate his failings. It considers that, while his insight is still developing, he has remediated and the risk of repetition is low. A finding of unacceptable professional conduct is itself a significant reflection of the concerns identified in this case. The Committee approached the issue of sanctions in ascending order and decided that it would be sufficient and in the public interest to admonish [him]. Its conclusion on proportionality was supported by its assessment that, in the light of the remediation and the low risk of repetition, the imposition of conditions on [his] registration would serve no useful purpose and that suspension of his registration would be punitive and therefore disproportionate.’ 
