By Stuart Eustice, Partner and Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v ZQO (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 387 (6 May 2025)

A nurse was found to have misappropriated Schedule 4 drugs of dependence from the hospital she worked at on various occasions and provided false or misleading information to her employer and/or Ahpra/the Board in relation to their investigations into her conduct. Prior to the hearing the nurse admitted the conduct and agreed with the Board about the characterisation of the conduct and the proposed determinations.

An example of the nurse’s misappropriation of drugs included that on one occasion she was not rostered to work, however attended the hospital in her uniform. CCTV footage showed that she sat at the nurse reception for some time. The nurse then entered the Medication room and exited with a white box-shaped object visible in her right trouser pocket. Shortly, afterwards, the Nurse Unit Manager reported various medications as missing.

The nurse was found to have engaged in professional misconduct and was reprimanded and her registration suspended for four months. Conditions, including urine and hair drug screening, prohibiting access to or handling of opioid analgesics other than those prescribed for her own use and a requirement for her to attend treating practitioners and be mentored were imposed, with a review period of 12 months. The Tribunal was of the view the conditions were appropriate and provided a supported pathway for a safe return to practice by the nurse.

Medical Board of Australia v Rattan (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 317 (29 April 2025)

The Board contended that a doctor had engaged in professional misconduct and/or unprofessional misconduct in that –

• between July 2017 and December 2019, he failed to provide appropriate care and treatment in that he did not conduct a physical consultation with the patient;
• he prescribed the patient with medication (temazepam and tramadol), without appropriate levels of ongoing review, assessment and management planning;
• he falsified the patient’s clinical record by knowingly, incorrectly and misleadingly recording vital signs attributed to the patient despite not physically attending on the patient during this period; and
• he billed various Medicare items despite not physically attending on the patient and/or creating a patient management plan.

The Tribunal found all four of the above allegations as proven, and concluded the doctor had engaged in professional misconduct.

In making this determination the Tribunal accepted it was not inappropriate for the doctor to provide treatment without having physically examined the patient on each occasion, however providing treatment for around two and a half years without seeing the patient was below the standard to be expected of any general practitioner but particularly one with the doctor’s experience. The Tribunal further commented that this was a substantial departure from standards because, by not physically seeing the patient, there was no opportunity for the doctor to update his knowledge and assessment of the patient, including as to her physical symptoms, her psychological state or her social circumstances.

As a result, the doctor was reprimanded, his registration suspended for 3 months, and conditions were imposed on his registration.

Chiropractic Board of Australia v Leong (Review and Regulation) (Corrected) [2025] VCAT 333 (29 April 2025)

A chiropractor has been reprimanded after she allowed her professional indemnity insurance to lapse because she could not keep up with the financial payments, breaching her obligations under both the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 and the professional obligations imposed by the Chiropractic Board of Australia.

When the Board was investigating the matter, the Board alleged the chiropractor had provided false and misleading information in that she stated she had ceased practice when her registration had lapsed, which was not the case.

The Tribunal agreed with the Boards submissions that the chiropractor’s conduct was objectively serious because had a patient been injured or suffered loss as a result of her professional treatment, they may not have been able to recover damages due to there being no insurance in place. The seriousness was aggravated by the fact the chiropractor was aware of the lapse of her insurance but continued to practice.

The Tribunal reprimanded the chiropractor, cancelled her registration and disqualified her from applying for registration as a health practitioner before 10 October 2025.