The background
The case relates to an optometrist (the respondent) who was alleged to have changed the results of sight tests entered by another optometrist (other Optometrist) on the store database on 410 occasions between February 2015 and January 2016.
The IT department of the store was able to show that the alterations were recorded as having been made by someone using the password of the respondent.
Expert evidence was led by the Board from a forensic accountant who posted several hypotheses in how the alterations could have been made and by whom.
The Tribunal found that the alterations were made deliberately and, for various reasons, could not have been made by the Other Optometrist (or any other optometrist at the store), including because she was actively involved in consultations at the time some of the alterations were made.
The Tribunal concluded that it was the practitioner who used his log-in password to make all alterations despite the respondent’s complete denials.
Unusually, there appeared to be little motivation for the respondent to make the alterations, especially where his conduct could result in the store having to re-make glasses at its own cost in circumstances where he was a major shareholder in the particular store. The Tribunal speculated whether the conduct might have been motivated by a minor disagreement over advertising material produced by the Other Optometrist which omitted to include the practitioner.
The outcome
The Tribunal found the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and:
- reprimanded the respondent;
- cancelled the respondent’s registration;
- disqualified the respondent from applying for registration for 12 months; and
- ordered the respondent to pay the Board’s costs to be fixed if not agreed.
Implications
The case illustrates the serious view taken by tribunals of dishonest behaviour in professional practice, particularly where such behaviour is calculated and prolonged, and the practitioner shows no insight. The Tribunal confirmed that such conduct impacts on fitness and propriety by cancelling the respondent’s registration.
The decision Optometry Board of Australia v Bhoola (No 2) [2020] SACAT 47 can be read here.
