The Background
In late 2014, Dr Alicia Meneghetti was practising as a general practitioner and met Stephen Dank, former sports scientist for the Essendon football club.
At the time of their introduction, Mr Dank had been serving a lifetime ban from sports imposed by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority as a result of his possession, trafficking and prescribing of performance enhancing drugs. Notably, he had been pivotal in the Essendon supplements saga, where players were injected with banned supplements and drugs.
At Mr Dank’s instruction, Dr Meneghetti had prescribed various peptide hormones and other performance enhancing drugs to Mr Dank himself and eight other patients whom he had referred to her. She had failed to exercise any independent judgment related to Mr Dank’s recommendations and prescribed those drugs upon acceptance of his advice even though he was not a registered medical practitioner.
Dr Meneghetti admitted to the above allegations and their characterisation as professional misconduct. In April 2020, her registration was cancelled and she was prohibited from applying for re-registration for a period of 18 months.
Dr Meneghetti wished to recommence practice and in November 2021, applied for a reinstatement order. She submitted that she was completing a Graduate Certificate in Professional Practice, had completed a course titled ‘Fundamentals of Medical Ethics’ and had kept up the recency of her practice by completing an Advance Certificate in Aesthetic Medicine. She also submitted reports from a psychologist and psychiatrist to show her insight and efforts to address her vulnerabilities.
The Medical Council of NSW neither consented nor opposed Dr Meneghetti being able to apply for re-registration provided she was subject to conditions, including a restriction to practice only minor cosmetic medical procedures, limited to 28 patients per day, no more than three days per week.
Outcome
The Tribunal acknowledged that cancellation of a practitioner’s registration did not necessarily mean that the practitioner could never be re-registered, however, the Tribunal needed to be satisfied that it was appropriate to permit re-registration, subject to conditions or otherwise.
The expert evidence indicated that whilst Dr Meneghetti was vulnerable to further misconduct and at risk of re-offending, the conditions proposed were adequate to contain that risk and ensured appropriate protection of the public.
The Tribunal accepted that Dr Meneghetti had made efforts to address her vulnerability and had taken personal responsibility for her actions. She had some insight into her vulnerabilities and had sought help to address them or at least was now able to recognise when she was being used by a patient.
Whilst the proposed conditions were rather restrictive, the Tribunal acknowledged that such conditions ensured a high level of supervision of Dr Meneghetti, which provided the best form of protection to the public from any reoffending.
Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that it was appropriate for Dr Meneghetti to be re-instated as a medical practitioner subject to the conditions.
Implications
The case is a reminder for all practitioners, whether they are seeking re-registration or not, that efforts to mitigate their conduct will be relevant in any final determination by a tribunal. For example, education to address any alleged deficiencies in practice and insight into any admitted misconduct will be viewed favourably and may result is a better disciplinary outcome.
To read the full decision Meneghetti v Medical Council of New South Wales [2022] NSWCATOD 91 click here.
