By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer

Medical Board of Australia v Whyte (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 215 (17 March 2025)

A medical practitioner has been found to have engaged in professional misconduct for obtaining a colleague’s prescription pad and using it to write prescriptions in his own name for self-administration, forging his colleague’s signature.

After a pharmacist noted a prescription in the colleague’s name had recently been filled by another pharmacy for the same substance, the pharmacist checked with the colleague. The colleague advised the pharmacist that he had not filled the script, but the pharmacist recognised the writing as the practitioners and notified AHPRA and Victoria Police. The Police searched the practitioner’s home and located numerous medications both prescribed by him and using the colleagues script pad, as well as medications purchased overseas. Criminal charges followed, to which the practitioner pleaded guilty.

The Tribunal reprimanded the practitioner and disqualified him from reapplying for a registration for 18 months. The Tribunal noted that had the practitioner not stated he never intended to return to practise, a longer period of disqualification may have been determined. This was particularly in circumstances where aspects of his conduct remained unexplained and where the practitioner had expressed limited remorse and insight into the conduct.

Medical Board of Australia v Thottappilil (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 178 (5 March 2025)

A medical practitioner has been reprimanded, his registration has been cancelled, and he has been disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 10 years as a result of a finding of professional misconduct.

The medical practitioner pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of nine charges, being seven charges in relation to the sexual assault of a person with a cognitive impairment or mental illness and two charges of sexual activity in the presence of a person with a cognitive impairment or mental illness. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of one year.

The Tribunal found the practitioner violated the professional boundaries that should, and ordinarily do, delineate a doctor/patient relationship during the time that he provided clinical care to the two patients. Additionally, the Tribunal found that he had provided inadequate clinical care, including by providing inadequate mental health treatment and inappropriately prescribing medication.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v UTC (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 185 (4 March 2025)

The Board brought disciplinary allegations against a registered nurse relating to a guilty pleading of two charges of breaching a Family Violence Safety Order (Order). The breaches involved the nurse communicating with the protected person (his wife) via text message.

The Tribunal noted that “health professionals are, in effect, often first responders, it is imperative that they be seen to be persons who victims of family can trust. Hence the perpetration of family violence by health practitioners needs to be strongly denounced”.

However, the Tribunal distinguished this matter from other decisions where serious sanctions have been imposed on health practitioners who have perpetrated domestic violence. This was on the basis that the context of the breach of the Order (sending three texts over a short period), was during a time of personal crisis for the nurse, and did not involve physical violence or coercive control, with no conviction imposed by the Court. Further, the nurse provided a statement indicating regret and remorse and outlined how his breaches impacted his wife.

In such circumstances, the Tribunal found the conduct amounted to unprofessional conduct and determined to impose a reprimand and conditions requiring further education, however, did not find it necessary for the nurse’s registration to be suspended.

Medical Board of Australia v Ibrahim (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 92 (26 February 2025)

The Tribunal reprimanded a psychiatrist for engaging “in a mode of practice which blurred the boundaries between his clinical treatment of a patient and provision of (much-needed) practical assistance to her”. The patient was a recent asylum seeker from Iraq who suffered from major depression, anxiety and possible post traumatic stress disorder, had limited English proficiency, was a victim of domestic violence, had employment difficulties and was experiencing housing stress, including a period of homelessness.

The psychiatrist treated the patient, and additionally assisted her with her Visa application (including completing the forms) as well as employment applications and provided her accommodation (including in a property he owned). The psychiatrist contacted the patient (calls and texts) over 66 times, before 7am or after 9pm, with such communications involving the provision of both clinical treatment and the practical assistance described. An anonymous complaint was made as to the psychiatrist’s conduct.

Whilst the Tribunal agreed the psychiatrist should be reprimanded, they determined that a suspension was not required. This was on the basis that it was clear the psychiatrist had undergone a significant change in his understanding of professional boundaries and acknowledged the support he gave the patient was ‘way too much’ and that his ‘charitable instincts’ should be put second to his compliance with ethical obligations. The psychiatrist had made changes to his practice, including not accepting telephone calls direct from patients. Further the Tribunal noted that the boundary transgressions here did not involve a personal or sexual relationship, and the patient was grateful for the practical assistance the psychiatrist provided her.