Defence-called expert says Regina chiropractor accused of sexual assault followed industry standards

Final witness testifies in sexual assault case WATCH: The final witness testified on Tuesday in the sexual assault case for Regina chiropractor Ruben Manz. Donovan Maess reports.

An expert called by Ruben Manz’s defence counsel testified the Regina-based chiropractor, who is facing several sexual assault charges, followed the industry standard of care when treating the complainants.

Manz faces a total of seven counts of sexual assault. He was first arrested in April of 2021 after two former clients came forward, alleging they were subjected to "inappropriate and unwanted actions" during their chiropractic treatments when Manz performed a certain maneuver called proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching.

In a criminal trial, expert witnesses are used to give non-biased opinions within their field to assist the jury in their decision. Expert witnesses are qualified by the court after argument before they take the stand.

The defence called trained chiropractor Dr. Brian Gleberzon Monday to serve as an expert witness in this case. He practices in Toronto, Ont. and is a professor at the Australian Chiropractic College.

As part of Crown argument, the prosecution previously called their own expert to testify.

Consent

Dr. Gleberzon believes Manz appropriately used consent forms in his office.

“Each of the medical records I saw had at least one signed and dated informed consent form,” he told the court. “And it was within the standard of care.”

“Can a chiropractor do too many of those forms?” defence lawyer Blaine Beaven asked.

“No,” Dr. Gleberzon responded. “They have to use it initially. But if a clinic or a chiropractor may have their own policy of saying, ‘If I don't see somebody for six months, they’ll refill out the form.”

Beaven asked Dr. Gleberzon if there is anywhere on the body chiropractors are not allowed to touch or treat.

“You're not supposed to come in contact with [the breast],” he responded. “But it may inadvertently happen.”

“There are, at the very upper margins, where occasionally you will probably come in contact to the very outer periphery of the breast. But that's as far as you would go,” Dr. Gleberzon added.

The defence then asked how patients would withdraw their consent.

“Patients can stop coming for any reason that they want,” Dr. Gleberzon said. “Mid-treatment, they could say, ‘I’m out.”

"What does a chiropractor do if a patient withdraws consent mid treatment? What's expected as reasonable?” Beaven questioned.

“Oh, you stop what you’re doing,” Gleberzon responded.

The defence also took Dr. Gleberzon through extensive descriptions of the chiropractic practice to assist the jury. It included explanations of what a PNF stretch was and how it is performed.

Diagnosis, treatment, and record keeping

Dr. Gleberzon was given a chance to review the medical records entered as exhibits into evidence Monday evening.

He was asked about his expert opinion of them when examination continued Tuesday morning.

“What opinions have you formed in regard to their cases about the diagnosis,” Beaven asked.

“To me, it’s all within the standard of care,” Dr. Gleberzon said.

“And what about the examination procedures used for it also,” counsel followed-up.

“It was within the standard of care,” the witness responded.

Beaven then asked about the treatment decisions and planning, as well as Manz’s record keeping for the patients.

Dr. Gleberzon responded twice more, “It was within the standard of care.”

“And what about the appropriateness of using a PNF stretch on the neck with regards to these seven patients?” Beaven said.

“It felt within the standard of care,” Gleberzon said a fifth time.

Cross examination

The Crown cross examined the expert to conclude his testimony Tuesday morning.

Prosecutor Carmody Hallamore asked Dr. Gleberzon about his use of the PNF stretch.

“Did you teach it yourself?” Hallamore asked.

“Yes,” Gleberzon responded.

“And do you use the PNF stretch in your practice?” the Crown followed-up.

“I tend not to,” the witness answered.

Hallamore then went on to ask if Gleberzon had ever touched a patient’s breast while performing the stretch.

“Throughout a 35-year career, it is possible I've inadvertently contacted a patient's breasts,” Gleberzon said. “Certainly, I didn't do it purposefully. “

He went on to say the accidental touching of a patient’s breast could happen if they shift without notice or are not ready for a certain chiropractic maneuver.

“And in that situation, would you apologize?” Hallmore said.

“I would say I'm sorry,” the doctor said.

Defence rests case

The defense called their final witness, Denise Gerein, Tuesday afternoon to wrap up their case in front of the jury.

Gerein is the current registrar for the Chiropractic Association of Saskatchewan (CAS).

“Our duty is to protect the public in regulating the excellence of the chiropractic profession,” she explained.

When on the stand, one of the complainants claimed she, “was literally laughed at,” and told, “a woman would never [be] believed over a chiropractor,” during a phone call when she attempted to file a complaint with the CAS against Manz in 2011.

“What do you know about that complaint or that phone call?” Beaven asked Gerein.

“Nothing,” she responded.

“What can you tell us about [the phone call],” the defence followed.

“I wasn't working there at the time,” the witness answered. “But that would be wholly inconsistent with how we deal with inquiries from the public and complaints made by the public.”

“When people call me to inquire about a complaint, we take that very seriously,” Gerein added.

Gerein went on to testify the CAS did not keep records of phone calls in 2011 unless a formal complaint, which they did keep record of, was filed.

“I have no record of any phone call or any complaint,” she said.

With the conclusion of presented evidence Tuesday, both the Crown and defence will prepare for closing arguments.

Those will be heard Wednesday afternoon before the jury is charged by Justice Janet McMurtry to come to their final verdict.

Thirteen jurors have heard this case through the nearly four weeks of proceedings. Before they are sequestered, one member will be selected at random to be removed and 12 will make that decision.

The jury is scheduled to begin deliberations Thursday afternoon.