A snapshot of registered health practitioner misconduct in Victoria: April and May 2023

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Stuart Eustice, Partner, Holly White, Lawyer, & Zoe Vlahogiannis, Lawyer

Medical Board of Australia v Redzepagic (No 2) [2023] VCAT 93 (30 March 2023)

A doctor was reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration for 18 months after the Tribunal found he had engaged in professional misconduct for breaching a condition imposed on his registration. In 2017, the doctor was granted limited registration as a medical practitioner which included requirements that he practice only under the supervision of approved supervisors, and in accordance with an approved supervised practice. His employment at the approved practice, and where his approved supervisors worked, was terminated. The condition was updated, so that he could not practice until the Medical Board provided new approved supervisors. Despite this, he assisted in 38 cardiothoracic surgeries at two hospitals. The doctor’s registration had ceased in December 2018 and so cancellation was not ordered.

Medical Board of Australia v Fitzpatrick [2023] VCAT 517 (27 April 2023)

A doctor was reprimanded and had conditions imposed on his registration after the Tribunal found he had engaged in professional misconduct. The doctor had issued numerous medical certificates which did not comply the requirements of the Medical Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct. The Tribunal imposed conditions requiring an auditor to attend the doctor’s practice on a quarterly basis and provide a report focusing on record keeping and issuing of medical certificates to the Board. The conditions are eligible for review after two years.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Kora [2023] VCAT 465 (28 April 2023)

A midwife was reprimanded and had a three-month suspension and conditions imposed on her registration after the Tribunal found she had engaged in professional misconduct. The midwife had provided sub-standard midwifery care in connection with two separate home births as well as failing to maintain professional indemnity insurance in relation to her practice as a private midwife for a period of approximately one month. The prohibit the midwife from privately practising as a midwife as well as requirements for further education and mentoring following her suspension period.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sandhu [2023] VCAT 488 (1 May 2023)

A nurse was reprimanded, and his registration was suspended until 23 July 2023, after the Tribunal found he engaged in professional misconduct. The nurse had made unwelcome sexually suggestive statements and gestures towards a nursing student under his supervision.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Tut [2023] VCAT 494 (4 May 2023)

A nurse was reprimanded after the Tribunal found she had engaged in professional conduct by failing to comply with measures in place to stop the spread of COVID-19 in aged care facilities. The measures required aged care employees working in two or more facilities within classified ‘hot spots’ to limit their work to a single site.  The nurse breached these measures by continuing to work in two hot spot sites.

Dental Board of Australia v Krishna [2023] VCAT 498 (4 May 2023)

A dentist was reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration for nine months after the Tribunal found he had engaged in professional misconduct and unprofessional misconduct. The dentist had provided sub-standard pre-operative care to a patient, continued treatment after the patient had withdrawn and/or not provided informed consent, and for failed to maintain appropriate clinical records.  The dentist had voluntarily surrendered his registration as of 1 July 2020.

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Beare [2023] VCAT 540 (15 May 2023)

A nurse was reprimanded, had her registration cancelled and was disqualified from reapplying for registration for six months after the Tribunal found she had engaged in professional misconduct. The nurse had dishonestly obtained medications for her own use (by stealing them from her employer) and practising with a substance use disorder. The Tribunal held she had practiced while she was aware, or ought reasonably to have suspected, that she had a health condition or impairment that could adversely affect her judgement, performance, or her patients’ health.

For further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Get the latest news insights and articles straight to your inbox, simply enter your details.

    *

    *

    *

    *Required Fields

    Insurance

    Insurance in MOtion – Modernisation of WA Workers’ Compensation Scheme