By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Associate

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Christoffelsz
[2026] VCAT 336 (13 May 2026)

A nurse has been reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration for 12 months after the Tribunal determined his conduct constituted professional miscount.

The nurse was granted provisional registration as a registered nurse. Conditions were imposed on his registration which required him to practise under supervision. The nurse accepted employment with Ballarat Health Services and did not advise his employer of these conditions. Further, in gaining that employment he claimed he held academic qualifications which he did not.

In making their determination, the Tribunal considered various factors, including:

• Seriousness of the conduct: The Tribunal found that there was ‘flagrant disregard’ by the nurse of his obligations regarding patient safety. Further, his conduct was dishonest and not advising he had conditions on his registration involved risk to patients.
• Conduct was not isolated: The nurse was in breach of the conditions on his registration for 15 months. It was not a lapse of judgment.
• Lack of integrity: The nurse deliberately misrepresented his educational qualifications when applying for the position and was not honest and transparent with those he worked with.

As the nurse had surrendered his registration the Tribunal was not required to determine whether a suspension or cancellation of his registration was required.

A key consideration in reprimanding the nurse, was that there was a lack of adequate explanation by the nurse for the conduct. The nurse advised he did not intend to return to practice. Nonetheless, the Tribunal determined that a suspension of 12 months was appropriate for general deterrence.

Podiatry Board of Australia v Jardine [2026] VCAT 261 (16 April 2026)

A podiatrist has been reprimanded and conditions imposed on his registration after he failed to renew his professional indemnity insurance and continued to practice, breaching the National Law.

In May 2021, when completing his tax return, the podiatrist became aware he had not renewed his professional indemnity insurance. The Board became aware of this in March 2022 by way of a routine audit.  Beining uninsured constitutes a ‘relevant event’ under National Law and the Board must be notified within 7 days of the practitioner becoming aware of it.

The podiatrist claimed he did not know this was a requirement, however accepted that ignorance was no excuse. In their reasoning, the Tribunal noted that there are only nine ‘relevant events’ and it is a practitioner’s obligation to know what they are.

Further, in renewing his registration in 2020 and 2021, the podiatrist made two false declarations by confirming he had held professional indemnity insurance. The Tribunal determined that these declarations were made recklessly, but not knowingly.

The Tribunal reprimanded the podiatrist and imposed insurance related conditions on his registration, to be in place for five years.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v McMahon [2026] VCAT 251 (10 April 2026)

A nurse has been found to have engaged in professional misconduct after he stole a credit card from a deceased patient.

The referral to the Board occurred after the nurse was charged with theft and obtaining property by deception after he used a debit card belonging to a deceased patient and purchased cigarettes on 17 separate occasions over a six-day period, for a total amount of $1,016.45.

The conduct occurred when the nurse was working at a telephone triage service based in a hospice. The card did not belong to a patient he had treated, and he stole the card from a room of belongings of deceased persons. The nurse expressed shame and that such conduct was uncharacteristic.

The Tribunal reprimanded the nurse, stating that ‘for a nurse to steal a debit card from a deceased patient and use it to purchase cigarettes on multiple occasions is disgraceful conduct, whatever the explanation for it. It is obviously dishonest. It is criminal. It deserves strong condemnation’.

The Tribunal suspended the nurse for a further 6 months, noting that overall this would amount to the nurse having been suspended for 3 years, sending ‘a clear message to the nursing profession that stealing from patients will not be countenanced’.

Education and mentoring conditions were imposed on his registration should he re-enter the profession.

Chiropractic Board of Australia v Barham-Floreani [2026] VCAT 249 (9 April 2026)

A chiropractor was found to have engaged in professional misconduct after she posted and published comments, images and reposts on social media and internet forums which were inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a registered chiropractor.

The Board alleged, and the Tribunal found, that some of the posts contained statements which:

• Denigrated and encouraged non-compliance with public health orders;
• Drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric;
• Promoted a view that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated by the World Health Organisation; and
• Were inconsistent with the professional values expected of registered chiropractors regarding: the effects of 5G electromagnetic radiation; race; and the role of government.

The podiatrist was not registered as a health practitioner in Australia, and so the Tribunal did not need to consider if her registration should be cancelled or suspended.

The podiatrist was reprimanded, disqualified for 12 months and prohibited from using the title Dr or Doctor and providing any health service, including any health education services, until such time as she is registered as a health practitioner.

In making this determination the Tribunal found the podiatrists conduct was serious, as it provided health information that was biased, unbalanced, false, alarmist, misleading and outside her area of expertise. Further, the podiatrist had been cautioned on two prior occasions about similar conduct.

The Tribunal also determined that there was a lack of evidence that the podiatrist had developed genuine remorse for her conduct and that general deterrence and maintenance of public trust in the profession had a significant role in the Tribunal making its determinations.