Chiropractors, like other registered health practitioners, have a professional and a statutory obligation to ensure that they and their practice are appropriately covered by professional indemnity insurance ('PII'). > > There are good reasons for this requirement. It means that their patients can have confidence that the chiropractor they are seeing has appropriate insurance cover if something goes wrong in their treatment, including physical injury. > > Not having PII for any period while a chiropractor is in practice will almost always be found to be professional misconduct. It breaches the Code of Conduct published by the Chiropractic Board of Australia ('Board'); the Registration Standard; and is a contravention of s 129(1) of the Health Practitioner Registration National Law (Vic) ('National Law'). It leaves patients vulnerable, breaches their trust, and damages public confidence in the chiropractic profession. Not having PII cover for an extended period of years is serious misconduct. > > Further, each year when they apply to renew their registration, chiropractors must also truthfully answer 'Yes' or 'No' to two questions about PII on the renewal application form ('the PII questions'): > > (A) In the previous registration period, did you meet the Board's registration standard for professional indemnity insurance arrangements? and > > (B) Do you commit to meet the Board's registration standard for professional indemnity insurance arrangements?; > > The reason for the declarations, and the importance of answering truthfully are obvious. The information is essential to the Board's decision whether to renew the practitioner's registration, and an untruthful answer frustrates the Board's ability to fulfill its role in protecting the public.

1. The respondent is 46 years of age. He was first registered as a chiropractor in 2002. He worked in and subsequently purchased a practice in Ballarat, Victoria. He held relevant insurance through Guild Insurance. It was a successful practice which he eventually sold in late 2017. He states that administrative matters such as insurance cover were looked after by a practice manager. He remained inexperienced in the business side of running a practice.
2. He planned to step away for a period from full-time work and to do some locum work as he travelled with his wife. In February 2018 he took out PII cover through AON Risk Services Australia (AON) as they offered a cover for "part-time" work. The period of this policy was from 6 February 2018 to 6 February 2019.
3. On 13 February 2019 AON emailed the respondent (at the address he had provided) to advise that the policy was due to expire and required renewal.
4. On 5 March 2019 and again on 19 March 2019 AON emailed the respondent to advise that immediate payment was required to renew the policy.
5. On 9 April 2019 AON emailed the respondent to advise that the policy had been cancelled, effective from 6 February 2019.
6. The respondent states that he did not to his knowledge receive any of these emails. He was operating four email accounts at the time. He speculates that the emails may have gone to his junk email folder which would automatically delete after 28 days. He was not in the habit of checking that folder.
7. The respondent was uninsured from 6 February 2019 to 13 October 2020. During this time, he practised as a chiropractor on a part-time basis at the Adelaide Family Chiropractic clinic at Morphett Vale.
8. On 29 November 2019 the respondent submitted an application for renewal of his registration. He declared that he had complied with the required PII arrangements during the previous period of registration. This declaration was false as he had been uninsured from 6 February 2019 to the end of the registration period.
9. The parties agree that the respondent acted recklessly in making this declaration. As Mr Hurburgh pointed out, he had had no contact with the insurer for a period of 20 months. He had made no payment during that 20-month period. He made the declaration, not knowing whether it was true or not, and without taking any steps to ascertain the true situation.
10. In October 2020 the respondent completed and submitted an online application to AON for PII cover. He paid a $2025.88 premium, and a new policy was issued for the period 13 October 2020 to 13 December 2021. Due to a computer autocorrect in the respondent's completion of the application, the policy was issued in the name of the respondent's daughter but that was subsequently corrected.
11. The respondent states that he decided in October 2020 to increase his working hours, and his intention was to "update" his policy by changing it to "full-time" cover. He did not realise he was actually applying for a new policy. He was not aware that his policy had lapsed. The Board does not seek to prove that the respondent was aware of the policy lapsing.
12. On 25 November 2020 the respondent applied for renewal of his registration. In the application, he declared that he had complied with the PII requirements during the previous registration period. This declaration was false as he had been uninsured from the start of that period until 13 October 2020.
13. The parties agree that the respondent acted recklessly in making this declaration. He had paid no premium since February 2018. The only documents he had received from AON since that time (in October 2020) were suggestive that he had no policy prior to October 2020. A moment's serious consideration would have informed him that the declaration was false. He made the declaration without consideration of whether it was true.
14. The policy issued in October 2020 provided for retroactive cover with a retroactive date that was "Unlimited, excluding any known claims and circumstances". This does not alter the fact that he had practised between 6 February 2019 and 13 October 2020 without having appropriate PII arrangements in place. However, it does restrict the potential harm to patients as he would now be covered for any claim with respect to the default period if he was unaware of the circumstances and the claim when taking out the insurance.
15. On 5 July 2021 the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) advised the respondent that he had been randomly selected for audit of his compliance with the Registration Standard. He was asked to complete and return a checklist with supporting documentation. Specifically, he was to submit certificates of currency for the period from 1 December 2019 "to present". This correspondence was re-sent on 6 September 2021 after the respondent reported that he had not received it.
16. Four days later, the respondent telephoned AON concerning his insurance. The call was recorded.[3] The respondent stated:

Yeah, hi, I was just wondering if you'd be able to look up a (sic) insurance policy from back in 2018, 2019 that I may have had with you guys.

17. After checking, the AON representative advised that there was a policy for the 2018 to 2019 period, and she could provide a tax invoice for that.
18. The conversation continued:

DR: Yep. So there was an'18/'19. '19/'20 is there anything on file for '19/'20? > > AONR: '19/'20, it looks like it was cancelled at renewal, so you didn't actually go ahead with it. > > DR: Yeah, yeah, and then I reinstated it back in, uh, October. Yeah, yeah, no, that's all good. Yep, awesome.

19. The respondent accepts that he was aware following this conversation on 10 September 2021 that there had been a gap in his insurance cover from February 2019 to October 2020.
20. That being the case, the appropriate course would have been for the respondent to make an immediate and unequivocal disclosure to AHPRA that there had been a gap in his cover. That did not occur. Instead, the respondent submitted the audit checklist 14 days later. He submitted certificates of currency for the periods 6 February 2018 to 6 February 2019 and 14 October 2020 to 13 December 2021. He said nothing about the period from 7 February 2019 to 13 October 2020. In response to a question: "Under which of these arrangements have you been covered from 1 December 2019 to present?", the respondent ticked an option: "I arrange my own insurance". He did not state that he wasn't covered for a period.
21. The audit checklist referred him to his declaration made on 25 November 2020. He acknowledged in the checklist that he had declared at that time that he had complied with the Registration Standard. He now knew that this declaration had been false, and the appropriate course would have been to advise AHPRA of that fact without delay. He did not do so.
22. The respondent's evidence was that he did not think it was his responsibility to advise AHPRA of these matters. We do not agree. The period of uninsurance should have been reported as soon as he was aware of it. The false declaration should have been corrected as soon as he was aware of it. These are fundamental professional responsibilities.
23. On 28 October 2021 Jessica Linn of AHPRA emailed the respondent to advise that the information provided was not satisfactory. She required that a certificate of currency be provided for the period 1 December 2019 to 13 October 2019.
24. The respondent responded on 9 November 2021. He wrote:

Dear Jessica, > > Thank you for your email. > > After reviewing my professional indemnity insurance cover with AON, I can confirm that there is a gap in my policy. My heart sank when I read your email, and this was brought to my attention.

25. The respondent had known about the gap in his policy since the conversation with AON on 10 September 2021. It had not been brought to his attention by Jessica's email. We find that he had failed to be candid with AHPRA concerning the gap since 9 September 2021 and was now attempting to suggest that he had not known about it until receipt of the email dated 28 October.
26. Furthermore, he advised AHPRA that he was unable to produce a certificate of currency for the period 1 December 2019 to 13 October 2020 but did not advise AHPRA that the gap in his insurance cover actually started on 3 February 2019.
27. We do not accept the respondent's evidence that he was candid with AHPRA throughout the process and at no stage attempted to mislead.
28. We do accept that he subsequently cooperated in the AHPRA investigation. He has accepted responsibility in these proceedings by his acknowledgement of professional misconduct. He has travelled from interstate to personally attend the hearing. He has demonstrated insight into the seriousness of practising without PII cover and the resulting potential for harm to patients. He has expressed contrition for his misconduct and an intention to employ better strategies and safeguards within his practice in the future.

1. The respondent produced compelling evidence of his personal circumstances from early 2019 to date. For privacy reasons (specifically that the evidence relates to the confidential personal affairs of persons who are not parties to this proceeding), we do not intend to recite those circumstances in this Statement of Reasons. We have paid close regard to the information provided by the respondent, including the supporting reports from his psychologist and his lawyer.
2. It will suffice to say that (particularly in 2019 and 2020) the respondent faced multiple and compounding challenges in his private life of a quite extraordinary nature. In combination, they have no equal in the other cases to which we have been referred. We accept that the challenges were highly stressful. The respondent has required ongoing psychological support and treatment. We accept that the respondent's focus would of necessity have been on family issues. We can well understand that the respondent would have felt overwhelmed by these personal circumstances. We can accept that the resulting stress would have reduced his attention to, and his ability to think clearly about, business matters.
3. Whilst these significant personal circumstances assist in understanding the reason for the misconduct, they do not excuse it. We give such weight as we are able to the personal circumstances of the respondent. In the end, however, the paramount consideration is the protection of the public.[4]
4. The Tribunal also takes into account the fact that these proceedings have been hanging over the head of the respondent for a significant period and would themselves have caused added stress.

1. Characterisation requires an objective assessment of the conduct against the appropriate standard.
2. The respondent's behaviour in practising for a period of about 20 months without appropriate PII arrangements constitutes professional misconduct. It was conduct that fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of his training and experience.
3. With respect to the second allegation, we have considered the two declarations together. The respondent's behaviour in making those declarations also constitutes professional misconduct. Again, it was conduct that fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of his training and experience.

1. The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is entirely protective. No element of punishment is involved. The imposition of disciplinary sanctions may serve one or more of the following purposes:

(i) preventing practitioners who are unfit to practise from practising

(ii) securing the maintenance of professional standards

(iii) assuring members of the public and the relevant profession that appropriate standards are being maintained and that professional misconduct (or unprofessional conduct) will not be tolerated

(iv) bringing home to a practitioner the seriousness of their conduct

(v) deterring a practitioner from any future departures from appropriate standards

(vi) deterring other members of the profession who might be minded to act in a similar way

(vii) imposing restrictions on a practitioner's right to practise so as to ensure that the public is protected.[5]

1. In Marin v Chiropractic Board of Australia,[6] the Chief Justice commented on the limited assistance that might be provided by comparative cases. We have reviewed a large number of comparative matters to which we were referred by the parties.[7] They reveal a range of approaches and, to some degree, a lack of consistency. We are grateful for the guidance provided but, in the end, must impose sanctions that we consider will achieve the disciplinary aims in the circumstances of this matter.
2. We consider that it is appropriate to impose a reprimand to mark the Tribunal's condemnation of the respondent's highly reckless approach to his professional obligations. We acknowledge that a reprimand is a serious sanction for a professional person.
3. We also consider that it is appropriate to impose the suggested conditions. They provide a degree of direct protection for the public. They are not at all onerous.
4. We consider that there is a need to impose a further sanction in order to:

(a) adequately provide for general and specific deterrence; and

(b) reassure the public that failures in the area of PII cover will not be tolerated and departures from professional obligations will be met with appropriate consequences.

1. Whilst the respondent has advised the Tribunal that he has taken steps to ensure that his PII cover is maintained in future, we are not convinced that he has demonstrated appropriate insight into his professional obligations. We were dismayed by his evidence in which he suggested that it was not his responsibility to advise AHPRA of the gap in his insurance or of the fact that his previous declarations had been false. There is still a need, in our view, to bring home to the respondent the seriousness and importance of his professional obligations, and to encourage more diligent compliance in future.
2. There is also a need to impose sanctions that will assure the public and bring home to health professionals that PII breaches will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate consequences. We would normally expect that serious professional misconduct such as occurred in this case would be met with a period of suspension.
3. In Angelakis v Psychology Board of Australia,[8] Doyle J remarked that "Ethical obligations are uncompromising, but life is complicated". There can be no compromise in respect of PII cover. However, there is some scope in this matter for the Tribunal to be moved by the extreme personal circumstances of the respondent which have contributed to his misconduct. We have decided to impose a substantial fine which we believe will be sufficient in the circumstances to achieve the relevant disciplinary aims. The advantage of a fine is that it will have a known financial impact on the respondent whilst the potential impact of a suspension would be difficult to accurately predict. The respondent stated that it would be "crippling" for him.
4. We impose the following sanctions:

(a) a reprimand.

(b) conditions as proposed with a review period of five years.

(c) a fine of $10,000.00, to be paid to the Board by 31 March 2025.

1. We order that the respondent pay the Board's costs of these proceedings to be agreed or fixed by the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal has made a confidentiality order to prohibit the disclosure of evidence of a highly personal nature in relation to third parties.
3. The conditions imposed by the Tribunal[9] were as follows:
   1. Dr Riordan must provide a certificate of currency in respect of the appropriate professional indemnity insurance coverage to the Chiropractic Board of Australia/ the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA):

a. on an ongoing annual basis, by 30 September each year, and

1. Dr Riordan is to provide to AHPRA the name of his professional indemnity insurer, together with an acknowledgement that AHPRA may contact the professional indemnity insurer for verification:

a. within 14 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions; or

b. within 7 days of any change to his professional indemnity insurer.

1. All costs associated with compliance with the conditions on his registration are at Dr Riordan's own expense.

1. [1] The National Law is to be found in schedule 2 to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (the Health Practitioner Act).

[2] [2023] VCAT 770 at [1]- [5].

[3] Transcript at Book of Documents page 125.

[4] Medical Board of Australia v Singh [2017] WASAT 33 [30(11)]; Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts [2022] SACAT 111 at [41].

[5] Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; (2001) 79 SASR 545 per Doyle CJ at 554; Pharmacy Board of Australia v Roberts [2022] SACAT 111 at [39]- [44].

[6] [2020] SASCFC 74 at [79].

[7] Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia v Le [2024] VCAT 982; Osteopathy Board of Australia v Reid [2024] VCAT 731; Chiropractic Board of Australia v Gooch [2024] VCAT 328; Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lloyd [2024] VCAT 293; Chiropractic Board of Australia v Constance [2024] VCAT 527; Osteopathy Board of Australia v O'Connor [2024] VCAT 280; Chiropractic Board of Australia v Crowe [2023] QCAT 358; Osteopathy Board of Australia v Zoch [2023] VCAT 198; Podiatry Board of Australia v McMurray [2022] VCAT 1222; Dental Board of Australia v Bhowmik [2022] QCAT 400; Podiatry Board of Australia v Moustakas [2022] VCAT 1042; Psychology Board of Australia v Postlewaite [2021] VCAT 569; Psychology Board of Australia v McDonald [2020] VCAT 158; Pharmacy Board of Australia v Strachan [2020] TASHPT 5; Pharmacy Board of Australia v Elias [2020] VCAT 496; Chiropractic Board of Australia v Northeast [2019] VCAT 1279; Psychology Board of Australia v Rigney [2018] VCAT 1400; Chiropractic Board of Australia v Carberry [2018] VCAT 147; Psychology Board of Australia v Elzo [2020] VCAT 345; Chiropractic Board of Australia v White [2021] SACAT 44; Chiropractic Board of Australia v Oborne [2023] VCAT 770.

[8] [2024] SASC 133 at [406].

[9] Conditions as per Tribunal Order dated 10 December 2024.