Health Care Complaints Commission v Naamo [2021] NSWCATOD 109

Health Care Complaints Commission v Naamo [2021] NSWCATOD 109

The respondent's repeated dispensing of drugs of addiction and restricted substances on forged or non-compliant prescriptions, dispensing in excessive quantities, failure to verify prescriptions, failure to keep required records and account for large quantities of drugs, and removal and unsafe handling of drugs constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct significantly below the expected standard and improper or unethical conduct. Considered cumulatively, the conduct was a flagrant breach of legal, professional and ethical obligations, incompatible with safe practice as a pharmacist and sufficiently serious to justify cancellation; the respondent was therefore guilty of professional...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Occupational Division Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning a Pharmacist Under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (nsw) / Final Decision on Amended Complaint, Protective Orders and Costs
Outcome
Respondent found guilty of professional misconduct; registration cancelled; reprimand, five-year non-review period and costs order imposed.
Legal Topics
['pharmacist Professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'schedule 8 Drugs of Addiction' 'schedule 4 Restricted Substances' 'forged Prescriptions' 'drug Registers and Pharmacy Record Keeping' 'cancellation of Registration' 'protective Orders' 'costs']
['health Practitioner Regulation' 'administrative Law' 'professional Discipline'] ['pharmacist Professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'schedule 8 Drugs of Addiction' 'schedule 4 Restricted Substances' 'forged Prescriptions' 'drug Registers and Pharmacy Record Keeping' 'cancellation of Registration' 'protective Orders' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Occupational Division Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning a Pharmacist Under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (nsw) / Final Decision on Amended Complaint, Protective Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct in relation to dispensing, storage, record keeping and removal of drugs of addiction and restricted substances at the Revesby Pharmacy and Condell Park Pharmacy.' "Whether the respondent's unsatisfactory professional conduct was sufficiently serious, individually or cumulatively, to amount to professional misconduct under s 139E of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)." "What protective orders should be made, including whether the respondent's registration should be cancelled, whether a non-review period should be fixed, whether a reprimand should be imposed, and whether costs should be ordered."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's repeated dispensing of drugs of addiction and restricted substances on forged or non-compliant prescriptions, dispensing in excessive quantities, failure to verify prescriptions, failure to keep required records and account for large quantities of drugs, and removal and unsafe handling of drugs constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct significantly below the expected standard and improper or unethical conduct. Considered cumulatively, the conduct was a flagrant breach of legal, professional and ethical obligations, incompatible with safe practice as a pharmacist and sufficiently serious to justify cancellation; the respondent was therefore guilty of professional...

Court Disposition

Respondent found guilty of professional misconduct; registration cancelled; reprimand, five-year non-review period and costs order imposed.

Orders

  • ['The respondent is reprimanded.' 'Pursuant to s 149C(1)(b) the registration of the practitioner as a pharmacist is cancelled.' 'Pursuant to s 149C(7) the respondent may not apply for review of Order (2) for a period of five years.' 'The respondent is to pay the costs of the applicant in an amount assessed in...