Deceptive Self-Prescribing Using a Spouse’s Name: How VCAT Determines Professional Misconduct, Fitness to Practise, and a Proportionate Suspension under the National Law?

:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Medical Board of Australia v Andric (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 875, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Administrative Division, Review and Regulation List

Presiding Judge: Deputy President I Proctor (with Member R McRae and Member S Shedda)

Cause of Action: Disciplinary referral and determination under s 196 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009

Judgment Date: 3 October 2025 (orders and written reasons)

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: professional misconduct

Keyword 3: self-prescribing and deceptive procurement

Keyword 4: prescribing for a spouse and conflicts of interest

Keyword 5: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) compliance

Keyword 6: general deterrence and protective jurisdiction

Background

This case concerns a registered medical practitioner who, over an extended period, issued prescriptions in the name of the Respondent’s spouse. Some prescriptions were written to supply medicines for the spouse’s ongoing conditions; a larger set of prescriptions was written in the spouse’s name so that the Respondent could obtain medicines for the Respondent’s own use.

The case is not about a single lapse in a busy clinic. It is about pattern, duration, and method. The Tribunal had to evaluate a repeated course of conduct involving regulated medicines and assess what that conduct reveals about professional standards, lawful prescribing, and public trust in the medical profession.

Importantly, this Chapter does not announce the Tribunal’s ultimate orders. Instead, it frames the dispute the Tribunal had to determine: how to characterise the conduct and what protective response was required.

Core Disputes and Claims

What the Applicant sought:

1. Findings that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of s 5 of the National Law, in relation to two allegations of inappropriate prescribing.
2. Protective determinations under s 196 of the National Law, including a reprimand, a period of suspension, and post-suspension conditions directed to reducing risk and restoring public confidence.

What the Respondent sought:

1. Acceptance that the Respondent’s conduct constituted professional misconduct for the more serious allegation and professional misconduct for the other allegation to a narrower extent, but resistance to any characterisation that extended beyond what was necessary.
2. Determinations that avoided suspension, or alternatively a shorter suspension, with opposition to ongoing conditions.

What the Tribunal had to determine:

1. Whether the proven conduct met the statutory definition of professional misconduct, including whether it was substantially below the standard expected and whether it was inconsistent with being a fit and proper person to hold registration.
2. What determinations were required to protect the public, deter similar conduct, and maintain confidence in the regulatory system, while taking into account the Respondent’s evidence of insight, treatment, and rehabilitation.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

How the Matter Began

The proceeding began with a confidential notification received by the regulator. The notification raised concerns that the Respondent had issued prescriptions for medicines in the spouse’s name and that the Respondent may have been self-medicating with those medicines.

The notification triggered regulatory investigation and immediate action steps. The Respondent admitted to self-medicating using medicines obtained through prescriptions written in the spouse’s name. That admission, combined with prescribing records, became the backbone of the factual case.

Relationship Context and the Risk of Informal Medicine

At a human level, the setting is familiar: a household where one person is a clinician and another has ongoing health issues. Many people can imagine the temptation to blur boundaries: a quick prescription to keep continuity of treatment, avoiding appointments, avoiding delays, avoiding administrative friction.

But Australian professional standards treat that temptation as a known hazard. When a doctor treats someone with whom they have a close personal relationship, ordinary clinical disciplines tend to erode. The critical safeguards in medicine are not only knowledge and good intentions, but documented assessment, independent oversight, and an objective treatment plan. The risk is not only that the treatment is wrong; it is that the usual checks that detect error stop functioning.

The Decisive Moments that Turned a Private Shortcut into a Public Proceeding

Three features pushed this matter from private impropriety into regulatory seriousness.

First, duration. The conduct was not confined to an isolated emergency. It unfolded across years.

Second, the use of the spouse’s identity for the Respondent’s own self-administration. That method is inherently deceptive. It is not simply self-treatment; it is a strategy to obtain regulated medicines by presenting a false picture to pharmacists, monitoring systems, and the prescribing framework.

Third, the medicines involved included categories associated with higher regulatory control, including medicines that attract heightened concern about dependence and impairment. In a surgical context, that risk is not abstract: the community expects that a surgeon’s judgment, motor skills, and alertness are not compromised.

From those facts, the regulator did what the system is designed to do: it escalated the matter into a Tribunal proceeding for public-facing determination.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Prescribing records and dispensing history showing repeated prescriptions written in the spouse’s name across a multi-year period, covering Schedule 3, Schedule 4, and Schedule 8 medicines.
2. Admissions by the Respondent that the Respondent wrote prescriptions in the spouse’s name and used those medicines for the Respondent’s own self-administration.
3. The Statement of Agreed Facts, Findings and Determinations, narrowing factual controversy and focusing the proceeding on legal characterisation and sanction.
4. The legislative framework:
   • National Law definitions of professional misconduct and the Tribunal’s powers under s 196.
   • Drugs regulation in Victoria governing possession, obtaining medicines by false representation, and restrictions on issuing prescriptions for self-administration.
5. Professional standards and codes:
   • Principles emphasising professional values, avoiding treatment of those with close personal relationships, the need for proper documentation, and the requirement to seek independent care for one’s own health.
6. Risk analysis:
   • The potential for harm to the spouse due to absence of independent assessment and missing clinical records.
   • The risk to patients and public confidence from a practitioner obtaining drugs of dependence through deception, potentially practising while affected.

The Applicant’s theory of the case was straightforward: the conduct was substantially below the standard expected of a practitioner of the Respondent’s experience, and at least in relation to self-prescribing by deception, it demonstrated unfitness during the period of conduct.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Early admissions and cooperation with the regulator, including acceptance of restrictive conditions that included drug screening and treating practitioner oversight.
2. Evidence of rehabilitation and stability over time:
   • Drug screening results with no adverse findings over an extended period.
   • Treating practitioner reports describing improvement in physical and mental health, insight, remorse, and current fitness to practise.
3. Contextual explanation of how the conduct arose:
   • Physical pain, injury history, and a period of psychological stress.
   • A claimed sense of shame and cessation before detection.
4. Submissions seeking moderation in outcome:
   • A reprimand as an agreed baseline protective response.
   • Opposition to lengthy suspension, arguing the hardship and the stabilising role of practice.
   • Opposition to ongoing conditions, contending risk had reduced substantially.

The Respondent’s theory was that protective objectives could be achieved with a reprimand and limited further restriction, given the evidence of insight and compliance.

Core Dispute Points

1. Characterisation dispute:
   • For the spouse-prescribing allegation, whether it extended beyond professional misconduct based on substantially below standard into the category of conduct inconsistent with being fit and proper.
2. Protective response dispute:
   • Whether a suspension was necessary at all, and if so, its length.
   • Whether conditions were required after suspension in circumstances where there had been sustained compliance with prior conditions.
3. Weight given to mitigation:
   • The proper role of health conditions and rehabilitation in moderating general deterrence and sanction severity.
   • The effect of delay between the period of conduct and the final determination.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

How Affidavits Function in This Type of Proceeding

In a Tribunal disciplinary matter grounded in agreed facts, affidavits and written statements often do a different kind of work from a fully contested trial. They are not primarily about proving whether events occurred. They are about:

1. Explaining context without excusing wrongdoing.
2. Demonstrating insight, remorse, and changed behaviour.
3. Providing an evidentiary bridge between misconduct in the past and risk assessment in the present.

Affidavits, treating practitioner reports, and compliance records become the practical tools used to answer the Tribunal’s protective question: what restrictions are necessary now?

Comparing the Parties’ Framing of the Same Core Facts

The Applicant’s framing of the Respondent’s self-prescribing conduct tends to focus on:

1. The deceptive mechanism: issuing prescriptions in another person’s name to obtain controlled medicines.
2. The regulatory breach: conduct inconsistent with the lawful practice of the profession.
3. The systemic harm: undermining public trust and the credibility of prescribing controls.

The Respondent’s framing tends to focus on:

1. The personal precipitating factors: pain, stress, and mental health vulnerability.
2. The forward-looking profile: treatment, compliance, negative drug screens, and stabilisation.
3. The protective sufficiency of a reprimand and a shorter restriction given present-day low risk.

The difference is not about whether the conduct happened. It is about what the conduct signifies and what the profession must be seen to do in response.

Strategic Intent Behind Procedural Directions

Tribunal directions in such matters commonly aim to:

1. Lock down the factual matrix through agreed facts to avoid unnecessary contest.
2. Require structured evidence addressing fitness to practise, insight, and rehabilitation.
3. Assist the Tribunal in making determinations consistent with the protective purpose of the jurisdiction.

The strategic logic is efficiency with integrity: if the facts are not truly contested, the Tribunal’s time is better spent on risk, standards, and protective outcome design.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Key Procedural Arrangements Prior to Final Hearing

Before the final hearing, the regulatory response included restrictions and monitoring mechanisms applied to the Respondent’s registration, including restrictions on certain prescribing and requirements for drug screening and treating practitioner oversight. Over time, as compliance continued and test results remained clear, the intensity of measures was adjusted.

Within the Tribunal process itself, the matter proceeded on the basis of agreed facts, a compiled Tribunal book of materials, and submissions on characterisation and determination. Costs were raised late and ultimately reserved, with directions for a further costs application process.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

This hearing was not a cinematic contest of surprise witnesses. The gravity came from something more common in professional discipline: a largely agreed factual foundation, followed by a concentrated dispute about how the law should respond.

The Applicant’s submissions pressed a simple proposition: where a practitioner has, over a prolonged period, used a spouse’s identity to obtain regulated medicines for the practitioner’s own consumption, the Tribunal must send a clear message of general deterrence. The community must be able to trust that prescribing controls cannot be bypassed by professional status.

The Respondent’s submissions pressed a different proposition: the Tribunal’s role is protective, not punitive, and where the evidence shows sustained rehabilitation, insight, and compliance, the Tribunal should not impose a measure that risks destabilising recovery and imposes severe hardship disproportionate to present risk.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive confrontation revolved around three evidentiary realities:

1. The prescribing timeline and volume. The course of conduct extended across years, involved repeated prescriptions, and included medicines with stricter regulatory controls.
2. The deceptive method. Writing prescriptions in the spouse’s name for self-administration is not a mere boundary blur; it is a misrepresentation to the medicines supply system.
3. The risk and professional meaning. Even if no direct patient harm was proved, the conduct is evaluated against standards reasonably expected of a practitioner and the trust placed in the profession.

The Respondent’s evidence of rehabilitation did not erase the misconduct. Its legal role was to shape the protective response: how much restriction was necessary now to manage risk and maintain confidence.

Judicial Reasoning

The Tribunal anchored itself to the statutory purpose: protection of the public and maintenance of confidence, not punishment. Yet the Tribunal recognised that protective orders can carry punitive effect, and that effect must be proportionate.

The Tribunal’s role is to protect the public, not to punish.

That statement is determinative because it frames every later step: the Tribunal does not measure outcome by how much pain the practitioner experiences, but by what restrictions are required to protect patients, deter similar misconduct, and uphold professional reputation.

The Tribunal then reasoned that despite the low present risk suggested by treatment and compliance, the duration and deceptive nature of the misconduct meant that some suspension was required to communicate standards and preserve confidence.

A strong message of general deterrence is required.

That statement is determinative because it explains why rehabilitation, while important, could not logically lead to a zero-suspension outcome in a case involving prolonged deception and controlled medicines.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

Orders and Determinations

The Tribunal made findings under s 196(1) of the National Law that the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct in relation to both allegations, with differing statutory characterisation as between the two.

The Tribunal determined to:

1. Reprimand the Respondent.
2. Suspend the Respondent’s registration for six months from 9 October 2025.
3. Impose conditions effective at the end of suspension, with a review period of 12 months from the end of suspension, including conditions directed to practice locations and drug screening protocols, and requiring nominated prescribing and treating practitioners.

Costs

The Applicant sought costs at the hearing without notice. The Tribunal reserved costs and set a timetable and process for any continuing costs application supported by written submissions.

Proceeding Suppression Order

The Tribunal made a proceeding suppression order under s 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic) to protect the identity of the notifier for 10 years. The Tribunal reasoned that protecting notifier privacy supports the notification mechanism essential to the regulatory system and that publication access beyond Victoria heightened the need for the order.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This decision is jurisprudentially valuable because it illustrates a disciplined separation between:

1. The practitioner’s present-day rehabilitation and fitness evidence; and
2. The system’s need for an outcome that preserves trust in prescribing controls and communicates professional standards.

The Tribunal accepted that present risk of repetition could be very low, yet held that prolonged deception with regulated medicines required a suspension to serve general deterrence and maintain confidence. That is the counter-intuitive core for many lay readers: you can be rehabilitated and still be suspended, because discipline is not only about predicting relapse. It is also about what the profession must stand for.

The case also demonstrates how Victorian medicines legislation interacts with professional discipline. The Tribunal treated contravention of medicines controls as reinforcing the professional misconduct characterisation, especially where conduct involved false representation and unauthorised possession or self-administration.

Finally, the decision shows how a suppression order can be integrated into a disciplinary outcome as a structural support for the notification system, which is a practical pillar of health practitioner regulation.

Judgment Points

1. The Tribunal treated the spouse-prescribing conduct as a serious departure from standards because it occurred in a close personal relationship and lacked core clinical safeguards, particularly documentation and an objective management plan.

2. The Tribunal treated the self-prescribing conduct as qualitatively more serious because it was not merely informal care; it involved a deceptive procurement mechanism and included medicines attracting higher regulatory concern.

3. The Tribunal placed weight on the integrity of the regulatory system. The misconduct was analysed not only in terms of possible clinical harm, but in terms of what it signals to the public about whether the profession can be trusted to regulate its own access to medicines.

4. The Tribunal separated specific deterrence from general deterrence. Evidence of insight and rehabilitation substantially reduced the need for specific deterrence, but did not remove the need for general deterrence.

5. The Tribunal treated delay as relevant to proportionality. The longer the time that has passed with compliance and stability, the more carefully the Tribunal calibrated the minimum suspension needed to meet protective objectives.

Legal Basis

Key statutory provisions and regulatory instruments that structured the Tribunal’s logic included:

1. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009:
   • s 5 definition of professional misconduct, including conduct substantially below expected standards and conduct inconsistent with being fit and proper.
   • s 196 findings and determinations, including reprimand, suspension, and conditions.
2. Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic):
   • Provisions restricting possession and obtaining Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 medicines by false representation.
   • Provisions regulating possession of drugs of dependence unless authorised.
3. Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Regulations 2017 (Vic):
   • Restrictions on issuing prescriptions for Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 medicines, including prohibitions on prescribing for self-treatment.
   • Restrictions on self-administration of Schedule 4 and Schedule 8 poisons unless authorised.
   • Restrictions on issuing prescriptions for Schedule 3 medicines unless for treatment of a person under the practitioner’s care.
4. Professional codes and standards:
   • Code-based duties relating to professional values, avoiding care for close personal relationships, documentation, and obtaining independent care for one’s own health.

Comparable authorities used to calibrate outcome included:

• Medical Board of Australia v Dr Giorgio [2023] VCAT 50, where family-member prescribing and self-administration issues contributed to disqualification outcomes, illustrating seriousness even where doses were said to be clinically appropriate.

• Medical Board of Australia v RRB [2023] VCAT 666, illustrating that comparative seriousness depends on frequency and pattern, not merely category of medicine.

• Medical Board of Australia v Ballekere [2022] VCAT 645, illustrating a structure where suspension, pecuniary sanction, and conditions can be combined, and the Tribunal’s willingness to treat repeated prescribing misconduct as requiring visible protective response.

• Medical Board of Australia v GMZ [2023] VCAT 1308, illustrating aggravating significance where there is prior history and criminality, and the protective system’s response in high-risk repetition scenarios.

• Medical Board of Australia v Lee [2022] VCAT 667, illustrating the limited but real relevance of mental impairment principles by analogy, where a demonstrated connection exists between impairment and misconduct and where deterrence considerations require careful calibration.

• Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Evans [2016] QCAT 77 and Health Ombudsman v HSK [2018] QCAT 419, illustrating the proposition that psychiatric disorder does not excuse misconduct but can mitigate outcome.

Evidence Chain

The Tribunal’s core conclusion can be expressed as:

Conclusion = Evidence + Statutory Provisions

Victory Point 1: The Applicant anchored the case in an agreed factual matrix that removed factual ambiguity.

Evidence: admissions and prescribing records, consolidated through a Statement of Agreed Facts and a detailed Tribunal book.

Law: the Tribunal could move directly to s 5 professional misconduct characterisation and s 196 determinations without being distracted by collateral factual disputes.

Why it mattered: when facts are agreed, the Tribunal’s reasoning is cleaner, and outcomes become driven by standards and protective objectives rather than credibility contests.

Victory Point 2: The Applicant linked the self-prescribing method to deception, not mere boundary error.

Evidence: prescriptions written in the spouse’s name for the Respondent’s own self-administration over years, involving regulated medicines.

Law: medicines legislation prohibits obtaining regulated medicines by false representation and restricts prescribing for self-treatment; professional misconduct includes conduct substantially below expected standards and conduct inconsistent with fitness.

Why it mattered: deception changes moral and regulatory gravity. It also directly engages public confidence because it undermines system safeguards.

Victory Point 3: The Applicant framed the risk in professional terms: trust, reputation, and system integrity.

Evidence: long course of obtaining medicines outside lawful practice; potential impairment risk where a practitioner continues work.

Law: the Tribunal’s protective jurisdiction includes maintaining confidence in the profession and regulatory system, and general deterrence is a legitimate purpose of determinations.

Why it mattered: even without proven patient harm, the Tribunal can act decisively when conduct threatens the profession’s standing and the integrity of medicines regulation.

Victory Point 4: The Applicant relied on codes of conduct as practical benchmarks for expected standards.

Evidence: lack of independent assessment, absent clinical records, and failure to implement a proper management plan when prescribing for a close personal relationship.

Law: unprofessional conduct substantially below standard can become professional misconduct; code principles are frequently used to illuminate what reasonable professional standards require.

Why it mattered: codes translate abstract standards into concrete duties: documentation, independence, and boundaries.

Victory Point 5: The Applicant used comparable cases to demonstrate that visible protective outcomes are typical in prolonged prescribing misconduct.

Evidence: the pattern here involved dozens of prescriptions and multiple schedules.

Law: proportionality and consistency in disciplinary outcomes are informed by comparable authorities, while remaining individualised.

Why it mattered: comparables helped the Tribunal situate the conduct on a seriousness spectrum and resist a purely personalised outcome.

Victory Point 6: The Respondent’s evidence of rehabilitation did not defeat the Applicant’s deterrence argument, but it shaped the minimum necessary suspension.

Evidence: compliance over years, negative drug screens, treating practitioner reports of stability, insight, and remorse.

Law: protective orders can be moderated where present risk is low, yet general deterrence can still require suspension in cases of prolonged deception.

Why it mattered: the Tribunal used rehabilitation as a brake on severity, not a switch that turned suspension off entirely.

Victory Point 7: Delay became a proportionality factor, not an immunity.

Evidence: misconduct occurred primarily between 2018 and early 2021, with determination in 2025 after prolonged compliance.

Law: the Tribunal can consider delay and intervening rehabilitation in calibrating the minimum protective restriction.

Why it mattered: this reasoning prevents regulatory outcomes from becoming disconnected from current risk, while still ensuring the public sees a meaningful response.

Victory Point 8: Conditions were justified as risk management even where relapse risk was low.

Evidence: the Tribunal accepted risk was low but not non-existent, and conditions could demonstrate continued compliance after suspension.

Law: s 196 permits conditions as a protective mechanism, including requirements tied to oversight and screening.

Why it mattered: the Tribunal designed a structured pathway back to practice, which supports both public protection and practitioner rehabilitation.

Judicial Original Quotation

The following short passages capture the Tribunal’s ratio-level logic.

The Tribunal’s role is to protect the public, not to punish.

This was determinative because it explains why the Tribunal analysed sanction through protective objectives rather than retribution. It also clarifies how hardship and rehabilitation enter the analysis: as proportionality factors, not as excuses.

A strong message of general deterrence is required.

This was determinative because it explains why suspension remained necessary despite evidence reducing specific deterrence concerns. The Tribunal treated prolonged deceptive procurement of regulated medicines as conduct that required a visible, profession-wide warning.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Respondent’s primary failure was not factual. It was strategic in the determinative contest about outcome.

1. Over-reliance on present fitness to erase the need for suspension.
   The Tribunal accepted rehabilitation evidence, but treated general deterrence and professional reputation as independent protective objectives. Where misconduct involved prolonged deception and controlled medicines, the Tribunal considered a reprimand alone inadequate as a public assurance measure.

2. Underestimating the significance of method.
   The use of the spouse’s name functioned as a false story presented to the medicines system. That method is hard to neutralise with explanations about stress or convenience because it signals conscious circumvention of safeguards.

3. Difficulty distinguishing spouse-prescribing from self-prescribing in moral gravity.
   Even if the spouse’s medicines were consistent with other clinicians’ treatment, the lack of records and independent oversight kept the spouse-prescribing allegation within professional misconduct. The self-prescribing allegation carried additional weight because it engaged deception and unauthorised procurement.

4. Conditions resistance collided with the Tribunal’s risk-calibration logic.
   The Tribunal viewed conditions as a structured, time-limited demonstration of continued compliance post-suspension. Opposing conditions can appear misaligned with a protective approach that prioritises monitoring during return-to-practice phases.

Implications

Five practical legal implications for the general public

1. Good intentions do not replace systems.
   If you rely on a professional shortcut, you may feel you are saving time. But the law often asks a different question: did you preserve the safeguards that exist to prevent hidden harm? The safest path is usually the one with records, independent oversight, and clear boundaries.

2. In regulated professions, trust is part of the job description.
   Some cases are decided not only by what harm occurred, but by what the conduct does to public confidence. When the system is built on trust, conduct that undermines trust tends to attract serious regulatory consequences.

3. Rehabilitation matters, but it rarely erases accountability.
   Australian disciplinary systems can recognise insight, remorse, and treatment. Those factors can reduce severity. But where the misconduct is prolonged or deceptive, a protective system may still require a visible response to reassure the community.

4. The method of wrongdoing can be more decisive than the motive.
   Two people can break rules. The one who breaks them through deception tends to face a sharper response, because deception attacks the integrity of the whole framework designed to prevent misuse.

5. Early, honest engagement with regulators tends to reduce risk, not increase it.
   Cooperation, admissions, and genuine treatment engagement can become powerful evidence that you are safe to return to practice. Silence and deflection tend to raise concerns. Accountability is often the first step to rebuilding trust.

Q&A Session

Question 1: If the practitioner’s spouse needed those medicines, why was prescribing still treated as misconduct?

Because professional standards in Australia place strong weight on independence, documentation, and conflict management when treating someone with a close personal relationship. Even where a medicine may be clinically appropriate, the absence of proper records and the lack of objective, independent oversight can still be substantially below expected professional standards.

Question 2: If drug tests were negative for years, why did the Tribunal still suspend the practitioner?

Because the Tribunal’s protective objectives include general deterrence and maintaining public confidence, not only predicting relapse. Sustained negative tests can reduce concerns about ongoing impairment and specific deterrence, but prolonged deceptive procurement of regulated medicines can still require a suspension to communicate standards and protect the profession’s reputation.

Question 3: What is the practical lesson for professionals facing health issues that may tempt self-treatment?

Seek independent care early. The law and professional codes expect that practitioners obtain objective treatment rather than self-diagnosing and self-medicating. When regulated medicines are involved, the risk is not only personal health; it is professional standing, patient safety perceptions, and the integrity of the regulatory system.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Health Practitioner Regulation and Professional Discipline, Prescribing Misconduct and Unauthorised Procurement of Regulated Medicines

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

[Execution Instruction Applied for Category ⑨ Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution, adapted to a professional discipline proceeding]

Step 1: Jurisdiction and statutory pathway

• Identify the enabling statute and the Tribunal’s power source.
• Confirm that the referral is authorised under the National Law and that the Tribunal is empowered to make findings and determinations, including reprimand, suspension, and conditions.

Practical warning: jurisdictional errors tend to be determined by close reading of the statute and the exact form of referral. Even where facts are serious, an incorrect pathway can undermine enforceability.

Step 2: Threshold definitions that frame the dispute

• Identify the statutory definition of professional misconduct and the elements the Tribunal must be satisfied of, including:
  • unprofessional conduct substantially below expected standard; and
  • conduct inconsistent with being fit and proper to hold registration.

Practical warning: it is relatively high risk to assume that only patient harm matters. Professional discipline often focuses on standards, trust, and system integrity.

Step 3: Evidence sufficiency and the chain of proof

• Determine the key evidence types:
  • admissions, prescribing records, dispensing history, and agreed facts;
  • codes and standards used as benchmarks;
  • expert evidence where truly necessary, particularly if clinical appropriateness is disputed;
  • treating practitioner evidence where present risk and rehabilitation are relevant.

Practical warning: a party who cannot connect evidence to each statutory element tends to fail even with persuasive narrative.

Step 4: Procedural fairness and case management

• Confirm that each party has a fair opportunity to be heard on:
  • findings of fact;
  • characterisation within the statutory definitions; and
  • determinations, including mitigation and protective design.

Practical warning: procedural unfairness arguments tend to succeed only where a real denial of opportunity can be shown, not merely disagreement with outcome.

Step 5: Protective purpose and proportionality

• Identify the protective objectives applied by the Tribunal:
  • public protection;
  • general deterrence;
  • maintaining professional reputation and community confidence.
• Evaluate personal circumstances, delay, and rehabilitation as proportionality factors.

Practical warning: it tends to be determined that even low relapse risk may not eliminate the need for a visible deterrent outcome in cases involving prolonged deception.

Step 6: Orders design and enforceability

• Ensure orders are clear, time-limited where appropriate, and connected to risk management.
• If conditions are imposed, ensure they are practical, measurable, and capable of compliance monitoring.

Practical warning: overly vague conditions can create compliance disputes and may undermine the protective aim.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In professional discipline matters, the concept of Equity does not operate as a shortcut to avoid statutory consequence. However, analogous fairness principles can matter in the following constrained ways.

Procedural fairness

• Opportunity to be heard:
  • The practitioner should have the ability to respond to allegations, evidence, and proposed determinations.
• Apprehension of bias:
  • The decision-maker must be impartial; if the process creates a reasonable apprehension of bias, the outcome may be vulnerable.
• Rationality and statutory conformity:
  • Decisions must remain within power and based on logically probative material.

Practical alternative pathway if statutory avenues are exhausted:

• If the practitioner considers the decision involves jurisdictional error, judicial review avenues may be explored, including whether the Tribunal misunderstood the statutory test, failed to consider a mandatory relevant consideration, or made a finding without evidence.

Risk warning: judicial review tends to be determined by strict legal error, not merits disagreement. A strong merits case does not necessarily translate into a successful review.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

• Statutory thresholds:
  • The statutory definition of professional misconduct must be satisfied before protective determinations are made.
• Evidence thresholds:
  • Findings must be made on the balance of probabilities, applied with attention to the seriousness of the allegations and consequences.

Exceptional Channels

• Delay and rehabilitation:
  • Where there has been significant delay and the practitioner has demonstrated sustained compliance and rehabilitation, outcomes may be moderated to the minimum necessary protective response.
• Health impairment relevance:
  • Mental health and physical health factors may mitigate outcome where a connection is established between impairment and conduct, and where deterrence objectives are not undermined.

Suggestion

Do not abandon a defence or mitigation case simply because the conduct appears serious. Carefully build an evidence-based narrative that connects rehabilitation, insight, treatment, and risk management to the protective objectives the Tribunal must apply. That connection is often the key factor that shapes the length of suspension and the nature of conditions.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

It is recommended to cite this case in submissions concerning:

• the seriousness of prolonged deceptive procurement of regulated medicines by a practitioner;
• the relationship between rehabilitation evidence and general deterrence in disciplinary outcomes;
• the appropriateness of a minimum necessary suspension where present relapse risk is low but professional confidence demands a visible response;
• the use of conditions as post-suspension risk management and public assurance.

Citation Method

As Positive Support

• When your matter involves a practitioner obtaining regulated medicines through deceptive means over time, citing this authority can strengthen the argument that suspension may be required even where there is evidence of rehabilitation, to serve general deterrence and public confidence.

As a Distinguishing Reference

• If the opposing party cites this case, you should emphasise distinguishing features such as:
  • shorter duration, absence of deception, emergency context, immediate cessation, earlier disclosure, or stronger independent clinical oversight;
  • a clearer separation between the practitioner’s conduct and any risk to patient safety;
  • more robust record-keeping and independent treatment pathways.

Anonymisation Rule

Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent.

Conclusion

This decision shows how Australian professional discipline draws a sharp line between private convenience and public trust: prolonged deceptive self-prescribing tends to demand a visible protective response, even where rehabilitation is strong, because the integrity of the system matters as much as the safety of any single patient.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Medical Board of Australia v Andric (Review and Regulation) [2025] VCAT 875), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.