By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Brown (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 488 (6 June 2025)

A nurse who worked at and aged care facility was found to have engaged in professional misconduct on the basis she misappropriated Schedule 4 (prescription drugs) and Schedule 8 (controlled drugs); self-administered drugs that had not been prescribed for her; and practiced under the influence of the drugs.

One example relied on by the Board was that on one occasion a medication count was undertaken at the nurse’s place of work which showed drugs missing. The medication was prescribed to a deceased aged care resident and was recorded in the drug register as having been returned to the pharmacy when that resident died. The nurse had co-signed the entry returning the medication to the drug register however the medication was not returned to the pharmacy. The nurse later admitted to self-administering the medication while at work and taking the remaining medication home.

The nurse was charged with various offences including theft of medication and unauthorised use of medication. She accepted responsibility for the offences and was subject of a diversion order. The nurse was never found guilty.

As a result of the nurse’s conduct she was reprimanded, her registration was suspended for 6 months, and conditions such a drug testing, were imposed on her registration, with a review period of 6 months.

Osteopathy Board of Australia v Georgopoulos (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 510 (11 June 2025)

An osteopath was reprimanded and disqualified for applying for registration for four months due to a finding of professional misconduct.

The osteopath, along with his father and brother, attended the home of another person without invitation (not a patient) in November 2021 and a violent physical altercation occurred. The osteopath was subsequently charged with six offences, including charges of unlawful assault, assault in company and intentionally causing injury.

In making its determinations, the Tribunal observed that it had been limited in its assessment by the relevant factors it would have taken into account, such as the Tribunal’s ability to assess the osteopath’s remorse and to understand his preparedness to practice in the future, on the basis the osteopath did not appear at the hearing.

Psychology Board of Australia v Asher (Review & Regulation)[2025] VCAT 517 (12 June 2025)

The tribunal found that a registered psychologist engaged in professional misconduct by engaging in personal self-disclosures to a patient in his care, which breached professional boundaries.

A patient attended the psychologist for a mental health care plan. Between 2014 and 2016 the plaintiff attended 11 appointments with the psychologist. The allegations relate to the psychologist disclosing personal information to the patient during sessions, including that his wife is Vietnamese and worked in IT, and that his sister is a lawyer with two children.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the self-disclosures were contrary to the relevant guidelines and were not for therapeutic purposes or the welfare of the patient, thus breaching professional boundaries between the psychologist and patient. As a result, the psychologist was reprimanded.

 Pharmacy Board of Australia v Stogiannis (Review and Regulation)[2025] VCAT 563 (25 June 2025) 

The Tribunal found that a pharmacist engaged in professional misconduct in that she:

• undermined and sought to undermine the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic;
• failed to meet her obligations as a registered pharmacist with respect to disease prevention and screening;
• failed to comply with the standards and behaviours expected of a registered pharmacist; and
• communicated with authorised officers, including police, in a manner which was inconsistent with the professional values and qualities required and expected of a pharmacist.

Throughout 2021 and 2022, authorised officers attended the pharmacy owned by the pharmacist and observed contraventions of COVID-19 health directions, including failing to keep a record of all persons entering the pharmacy and failing to wear a mask.

Improvement notices and then infringement notices were issued to the pharmacist, and surveillance was undertaken which evidenced that the pharmacist continued to contravene the health directions.

Whilst the pharmacist invited the Tribunal to see that her conduct was not ‘acts of deliberate defiance or neglect, but rather symptomatic of the significant pressure, stress, and confusion experienced by frontline workers, especially those operating in sole capacity with limited support’, the Tribunal was not convinced.

The Tribunal made the determination to reprimand the pharmacist, cancel her registration and disqualify her from applying to be registered for a period of 12 months.