By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Woodley (Review & Regulation) [2025] VCAT 665

The Tribunal determined a nurse had engaged in professional misconduct for public posts on her Facebook account which were inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a registered nurse as well as engaging in ‘in inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening communications’ towards Ahpra officers.

The nurse made 37 Facebook posts which were publicly available. The Tribunal held that some of these posts, which included the nurse’s own comments as well as reports of material, contradicted the public health response to the COVID-19 health campaign; had the potential to undermine public confidence in the public health response to COVID-19 and the national immunisation campaign.

The Tribunal stated that while nurses can have their own beliefs and values, they must adhere to the National Code of Conduct and have a responsibility to promote public health.

Further, the Tribunal concluded that the nurse’s emails to Ahpra offices as part of the investigation of her conduct were inappropriate, discourteous, abusive and threatening, breaching the Code of Conduct.

As a result, the nurse was reprimanded, her registration cancelled, and she was disqualified for three years.

Medical Board of Australia v Canty (Review and Regulation) (Corrected) [2025] VCAT 621

An anaesthetist has been reprimanded after it was determined he had engaged in professional misconduct. The anaesthetist was caring for a paediatric patient during a dental procedure, when he left his anaesthetised patient for around 30 minutes to attend a Zoom conference call.

It was noted that an anaesthetic nurse was present and monitoring the patient at all times while the dentist undertook the procedure, with the anaesthetist in an adjoining room from which he stated that he could see and largely hear what was occurring.

After being put on notice of the concerns about his conduct, the anaesthetist accepted he had acted inappropriately, and he ought to have chosen whether to undertake his professional responsibilities to his patent by remaining with them, or attend the Zoom call, and there was no justification for him electing to do both.

As a result of his conduct, the anaesthetist was reprimanded. The Tribunal stated the lesson to be learned is that there are always risks associated with any time an anaesthetist is away from their patient and so their physical presence is always required except in exceptional circumstances, and that a medical practitioner’s duties to a patient come before other responsibilities.

Chiropractic Board of Australia v PZZ (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 576

A chiropractor was found to have engaged in professional misconduct after having a long-term relationship with a client, who for some time, was also his employee.

The Tribunal determined as there was minimal prospect of the chiropractor repeating this conduct, there was minimal, if any, requirement for determinations to achieve specific deterrence. However, while specific deterrence was not deemed to be required, the Tribunal did consider that general deterrence was required to uphold the reputation of the profession and therefore suspended the chiropractor for three months. Conditions were also imposed on the chiropractor, including education and mentoring.