Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2012-12-05

background. She employs a dental nurse and a receptionist to assist her. 2. In September 2010, Dr Lozanova refunded the full amount of $4066.60 she had charged the Scheme relating to the Notifier. 3. In mid-2011, Dr Lozanova began consulting Dr Don Highfield (a dentist) to assist her to improve her skills. 4. On 22 February 2012, a Performance and Professional Standards Panel of the Dental Board of Australia found Dr Lozanova engaged in unprofessional conduct in respect of the records she generated for the Notifier and the treatment she provided to her. She was:

Cautioned;
Ordered to undertake further training and mentoring over 12 months from Dr Highfield; and

Dr Freckleton advised the Tribunal, that the parties regarded the proposed determinations as within the range available. The Board accepted that in invoicing the Scheme, Dr Lozanova did not intend to act dishonestly in the sense that she intended to provide the treatment which she was invoicing for at a future date. If the Board had taken the view that dishonesty in the sense that Dr Lozanova never intended to provide the treatment was evident, it would have proposed harsher penalties. Concerning the fine, the proposed amount of $5000, it is roughly equivalent to the amount Dr Lozanova invoiced the scheme.
We were advised that Dr Lozanova plans to see Dr Highfield twice more, in December 2012 and February 2013. She awaits notification of the dates when she can undertake the ethics unit early in 2013.

We accepted the proposed determinations as being within the range available and so appropriate in this case.
We take into account Dr Lozanova's serious health issues and the financial difficulties she found herself in. We assume Dr Lozanova understands that, in retrospect, her attempt to establish herself as a solo practitioner without sufficient support was most unwise.
We agree a two-month suspension is appropriate taking into account it will span the Christmas 2012/2013 period. We understand this relatively short suspension will allow her new practice, with supports in place, to continue in 2013. Given the suspension when she will not be earning, Dr Lozanova has until 31 March 2012 to pay the fine. Under section 77(4)(f), the fine is payable to "the responsible board", which is now the applicant.
We emphasise that had we formed the view that if Dr Lozanova had invoiced the Scheme never intending to provide the services for which she claimed, we would have imposed a longer suspension and a higher fine. It is imperative that the dental profession understands that its members must exercise the highest standards of probity in utilising the Scheme which is designed to treat people suffering from diabetes and other chronic illnesses. Failure to do so is likely to attract harsh penalties.

Mutual Recognition Act 1987

Dental Board of Australia v Lozanova (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2012] VCAT 1943 (5 December 2012)

The definition (b) is similar to what, Mandie J said in Campbell v The Dental Board of Victoria [1999] VSC 113,

Section 77(4) provides VCAT's powers to make determinations, including those we have made.
Our purpose in this proceeding is to protect the public and uphold the standards of the dental profession, not to punish.
In Chinese Medicine Registration Board of Victoria v Wardha (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2010] VCAT 2128 (20 July 2010) VCAT reiterated its decision in Dr Mark Pearson Gilles v Chiropractors Registration Board [2006] VCAT 436, where it set out what the design of the Act was to achieve. The Act there is in similar terms to the Act and what is stated there equally applies in this situation. It is there stated at paragraph 147 -

While the appropriate determinations are for VCAT, as constituted in this proceeding to decide, we agree with Ross J's words in Secretary to the Department of Planning and Community Development v Muto [2011] VCAT 328 at [26],

Dental Board of Australia v Lozanova

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (4)

Dental Board of Australia v Lozanova (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2012] VCAT 1943 (5 December 2012)