Background
The Podiatry Board of Australia (the Board) alleged that the podiatrist:
- failed to maintain any or any appropriate professional indemnity insurance (PII) between June 2016 and October 2018;
- made false declarations about his PII to the Board when renewing his registration in 2016, 2017 and 2018, and during an audit of his practice late 2018;
- gave false and/or misleading information during his Ahpra interview and to his professional indemnity insurer; and
- failed to notify the Board that his PII arrangements were no longer in place.
The Board submitted that the failure to notify the Board that his PII arrangements were no longer in place constituted unprofessional conduct and the balance of the allegations constituted professional misconduct.
Outcome
The Tribunal was satisfied that the practitioner had engaged in the conduct alleged and agreed that his conduct constituted both professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct as submitted by the Board.
The Tribunal stated that the conduct in failing to maintain the PII was professional misconduct as it fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner.
The Tribunal found the practitioner did not take the necessary steps to confirm his PII was current at the time he made the declarations that he had PII, and this conduct was reckless. The repeated nature of the false declarations also constituted professional misconduct.
Whilst the Tribunal did not conclude that the practitioner was not a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession, it was noted that his conduct was inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person.
The Tribunal emphasised that the requirement for PII was for the protection of the public and of fundamental importance in any health profession, regardless of the relative risks that each heath profession may pose.
It was also noted that the Board cannot perform its function properly without the provision of frank and honest information from a practitioner, and deliberate attempts to mislead the Board undermines their ability to perform their function. It is conduct that is plainly inconsistent with the essential characteristics of a health practitioner and may bear on their ability to care for patients and the reputation of the profession.
The Tribunal reprimanded the practitioner and suspended his registration for 4 months, acknowledging that whilst he may have initially been mistaken about his PII, his conduct was compounded by his deliberate and false declarations. Conditions were imposed on his practice following the period of suspension, including the requirement to provide a certificate of currency of his professional indemnity insurance annually.
Implications
The case highlights the importance for practitioners to be frank and honest in all communications with Ahpra and their regulatory board. The making of false and misleading statements may have serious consequences, including a finding that they are not a fit and proper person to practice.
To read the decision in Podiatry Board of Australia v Moustakas (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 1042, click here.
