By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer

Medical Board of Australia v Singh (Review and Regulation)
[2025] VCAT 262 (2 April 2025)

An orthopaedic surgeon has been reprimanded for professional misconduct.  During a surgery consultation, it became apparent the patient had numbness in her hips and legs. The surgeon had the patient undress so he could determine the extent of that numbness in circumstances where it was relevant to the proposed surgery. The examination involved the surgeon touching the patient in her groin area, which lasted less than a minute.

In August 2017, criminal charges of sexual assault were laid against the surgeon. In December 2020, these charges were heard by a jury and Court and the surgeon was found not guilty.

The Board stated while the examination itself was found to be clinically appropriate, the surgeon did not explain the purpose and nature of the examination and so the patient did not give informed consent. Further, the Board claimed the examination, and the way it was conducted, was inappropriate, including the surgeon’s failure to protect the patient’s privacy and dignity.

The Board and the surgeon agreed the appropriate determination should be that the surgeon was reprimanded, given a 12-month suspension and that conditions be imposed on his registration. However, given the surgeon’s remorse, the eight-year history of the disciplinary matter, education already completed and extensive changes to his practice, the Tribunal only reprimanded the surgeon.

The Tribunal commented that should any other health practitioner consider the surgeon was treated lightly, they should know the surgeon experienced personal and professional disgrace, was subject to criminal and disciplinary processes and has now been publicly denounced for his conduct towards the patient.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Hauser (Review and Regulation)
[2025] VCAT 313 (14 April 2025)

A registered nurse has been reprimanded, his registration has been cancelled and he has been disqualified until 2029 on the basis he was arrested and charged with using a carriage service to transmit child abuse material. The offending involved the nurse making 19 recordings of himself describing sexual fantasies involving children and uploading them to a telephone chat service called ‘Fast Meet’, as well as having three live chat calls through that service.  The nurse pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to two years imprisonment, however due to ‘exceptional circumstances’ he was released on a recognisance order.

The Tribunal noted that relevant to the proceeding was that the nurse’s conduct did not involve actual events as the messages were fictional, nor did the conduct involve his workplace

In coming to its determination, the Board considered the nurse had a 30 year ‘blemish free’ career; gave weight to his guilty plea and efforts towards rehabilitation and acknowledged an expert psychologist report which concluded the nurse was not a risk of either reoffending or escalating his offending.

Osteopathy Board of Australia v Chang (Review and Regulation)
[2025] VCAT 337 (14 April 2025)

An osteopath has been reprimanded, her registration has been suspended for 3 months and conditions have been imposed on her registration after a finding she had engaged in professional misconduct for transgressing professional boundaries by developing a close personal and/or sexual relationship with her patient.

The Tribunal noted that professional boundaries are integral to a good osteopath/patient relationship and that guidelines warn that a sexual relationship, even if the patient is a consenting adult, could impair the osteopath’s clinical judgement and compromise the patient’s management and care. Further, while professional boundaries apply to all health professions, they apply especially in manual therapy disciplines, such as osteopathy, because the discipline involves touching.

Psychology Board of Australia v Hayden (Review and Regulation)
[2025] VCAT 322 (14 April 2025)

The Tribunal was asked to determine whether a psychologist engaged in professional misconduct regarding 15 allegations brought by the Board, which included failure to provide good client care; failure to arrange continuity of care; failure to communicate respectfully and appropriately; failure to maintain appropriate boundaries; improper use of medical records; and poor record keeping.

The Tribunal noted the seriousness of the conduct was reflected by the practitioner agreeing that 13 of the 15 allegations constituted professional misconduct, that the conduct occurred over eleven years involving four different patients, and that the breadth of the conduct was varied and ranged from sexualised comments to failing to maintain good client care. In coming to its determination, the Tribunal also accounted for the psychologist’s three prior disciplinary matters.

As a result, the psychologist was reprimanded, his registration was cancelled, he was disqualified from applying for registration and is prohibited from providing mental health, psychological or counselling services unless and until he is re-registered.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sundstrom (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 365 (28 April 2025)

The Board alleged that a registered nurse engaged in professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct during her employment at aged care facilities in regional Victoria. The allegations included that the nurse misappropriated Schedule 8 drugs; altered records to conceal the misappropriations; removed pages form records; failed to record drug delivery; and failed to administer medications to residents at the scheduled times.

The Tribunal reprimanded the nurses, cancelled her registration, disqualified her from applying for registration for two years; and prohibited her from providing any health service, where the position provides opportunity for unsupervised access to locked or unsecured scheduled medications, or prescription medications of dependence, until she is re-registered as a health practitioner.

These determinations were made on the basis the nurse did not indicate she had developed insight or remorse, meaning there was a substantial risk that her conduct would be repeated if she were permitted to resume practice. This was particularly as the nurse denied any wrongdoing and gave explanations for the discrepancies in the drug registers which were disingenuous.