The Tribunal finds that the respondent Samir Redzepagic engaged in professional misconduct within paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria), in that, between on or about 4 January 2018 and 19 October 2018, he practised as a medical practitioner in breach of conditions on his registration (Allegation 3).

1. The respondent is reprimanded.
2. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 18 months from the date of this order.

1. On 8 July 2022, we made findings in this proceeding against Dr Samir Redzepagic, that he:

engaged in professional misconduct within paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria), in that, between on or about 4 January 2018 and 19 October 2018, he practised as a medical practitioner in breach of conditions on his registration.

1. Our reasons were published as Medical Board of Australia v Redzepagic [2022] VCAT 838.[1] They set out the history of the proceeding; the allegations made; our findings; and the reasons why we characterised the conduct as professional misconduct within paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) (National Law). We refer to those reasons without repeating them.
2. The conduct we found Dr Redzepagic had engaged in was that between about 4 January 2018 and 19 October 2018, he contravened restrictions on his limited registration by attending as a medical practitioner upon, and assisting in, surgeries at Mulgrave Private Hospital and Knox Private Hospital.
3. The conditions in place at the time required him to practice only in general practice and only in accordance with approved supervised practice arrangements. Because his employment as a GP at a specified GP clinic had been terminated, he was no longer subject to supervision by the approved supervisors at the clinic, and no alternative supervision arrangements had been put in place, he was at the time effectively prohibited from medical practice.
4. In what we described as 'flagrant' breach of the restrictions on his registration, he attended as an assisting surgeon at approximately 37 surgeries at Mulgrave Private Hospital, and one surgery at Knox Private Hospital on or about 27 September 2018. All were cardiothoracic surgeries. He did not disclose the restrictions on his practice to those who had a right to know - the patients, the surgeons, and the hospitals.
5. There is no suggestion made by the Board that any patient was harmed during the surgeries because of his involvement. This is fortuitous but it does not diminish the seriousness of the conduct. The surgeons he assisted should have been told before engaging him that his practice was restricted. Their patients were entitled to expect that any assisting surgeon would be one who was permitted to be involved in their surgeries.
6. Our finding that the conduct came within paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct was a finding that Dr Redzepagic had engaged in:

(a) unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and

(c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practice of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

1. Dr Redzepagic was aware of the Board's application; the first listed hearing before us on 10 November 2021; and the second listed hearing on 8 July 2022. The 8 July 2022 hearing had been listed at his request after he failed to attend the first hearing and then asked for an adjournment for medical reasons.
2. Because Dr Redzepagic subsequently did not attend the second listed hearing, we deferred our decision on determinations (orders consequential to findings of professional misconduct) to give him the opportunity to provide submissions in response to those of the Board before we made our decision on the papers.
3. Our published reasons set out the Board's submissions. Dr Redzepagic has not provided any submissions in response, nor any explanation for his failure to attend the second hearing.
4. Dr Redzepagic's registration as a medical practitioner ceased in December 2018, just over four years ago. Because he does not hold registration, the option of cancellation is not available under the National Law. We can, however, make orders that he be disqualified from applying to be re-registered for a period of time, if it is appropriate to do so.
5. Disqualification does not mean that a person will automatically be re-registered when the disqualification period comes to an end. It means only that they cannot apply until then. Whether any application is granted is for the Board to decide in the future.
6. We agree with the Board's submissions that in this case disqualification and a formal reprimand are appropriate. We have carefully considered the appropriate period of disqualification in this case, noting that the Board originally sought a period of 18 months, modifying this to 12 to 14 months after the Board withdrew two of the three allegations it originally made.[2]
7. Notwithstanding the Board's proposal for a reduced period, we consider that 18 months' disqualification is an appropriate period in respect of the remaining allegation, for the following reasons.
8. Specific and general deterrence are both important here.
9. Specific deterrence is relevant because of the repeated and flagrant breaches by Dr Redzepagic of the straightforward, easily understood conditions on his registration, that limited his ability to practise medicine to practising as a GP under approved supervision.
10. His responses to the Board included a disingenuous explanation of why he thought he was permitted to offer to assist in surgeries - disingenuous not only because it was obvious from the terms of the conditions that he was not permitted to practise as an assistant surgeon in a hospital, but also because he made specific inquiry about whether he might be able to do so and was told he could not.
11. His responses indicated to us a lack of insight into, or an unwillingness to acknowledge, the seriousness of the conduct. We were also concerned about his failure to participate further in this proceeding, having been granted his requested adjournment. There may be many reasons why a practitioner chooses not to participate. In this case we consider that, apart from being disrespectful to the Board and the Tribunal, it suggests a concerning disinterest in an important process which has as its aim the protection of the public.
12. We agree with the Board that a determination that addresses general deterrence is important[3] if the public is to be protected from practitioners who disregard restrictions on their registration - particularly where, as here, the breaches involved misleading patients and colleagues as to the doctor's right to be in practice, let alone assisting in cardiothoracic surgery.
13. We also consider it important to send a sufficiently strong message that compliance by practitioners with conditions on their registration, imposed in the interests of patient safety, is a fundamental obligation of medical practitioners, and they may not 'pick and choose' to suit their own ideas of what is appropriate for them.
14. We make orders accordingly.

1. [1] Medical Board of Australia v Redzepagic (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 838 (26 July 2022)

[2] Relating to relatively minor matters that were not, in any event, within our jurisdiction.

[3] Referring to Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Little [2020] VCAT 687 at [39]- [40].