19th January 2018, Volume 131 Number 1468

Charge

The Tribunal considered a charge against Dr Brabant (the Doctor). The charge alleged that between 2012 and 2016 the Doctor failed to comply with the Medical Council’s requirements for continuing professional development (CPD), its recertification requirements through “Inpractice” and that he made two false entries in his Inpractice portfolio in 2014.

The Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) alleged that these continued failures and the false entries demonstrated a deliberate disregard for professional responsibilities, and amounted, either separately or cumulatively, to professional misconduct.

Background

It was clear to the Tribunal that the Medical Council had made considerable efforts to engage with, and assist the Doctor to achieve compliance with his CPD requirements.

The Doctor did not engage with the Tribunal process and did not attend the meeting.

Finding

The Tribunal found, on a cumulative basis, the charge of professional misconduct was established.

The Tribunal considered the extended history of non-compliance made this an exceptional case. The conduct could not be explained by simple oversight, a period of ill health or a lapse of judgment. The Tribunal found the conduct had been sustained over a long period and had been the subject of so much communication from the Medical Council and Inpractice, that it could only be viewed as deliberate by the Doctor.

The Tribunal considered the failure to CPD and recertification requirements over such a lengthy period, raised serious public safety and professional standards concerns. The public and the profession are entitled to expect that registered health practitioners will diligently attend to their CPD activities and comply with all recertification requirements.

Penalty

The Tribunal censured the Doctor, fined him $3,000 and ordered him to pay costs of $15,918. The Tribunal further ordered that for 18 months he must practise under supervision.

The focus of the supervision is to be on the Doctor’s engagement and participation in his

recertification requirements, professional responsibility and any matters that the Medical Council considers appropriate. The cost of the supervision is to be met by the Doctor.

The Tribunal further directed publication of its decision and a summary.

A full copy of the decision can be viewed at http://www.hpdt.org.nz/ChargeDetails.aspx?file=Med16/372P