Posts in this blog - and an article in
Australian Health Law Bulletin noted
here - have noted controversial litigant Vito Zepinic. In
Vito Zepinic v Health Care Complaints Commission [2020] NSWSC 13 the NSW Supreme Court has refused Zepinic's appeal from a NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision.
Zepinic emigrated to Australia from the former Yugoslavia in 1993, having apparently served as a Deputy Interior Minister in the government of Bosnia-Herzogovina and allegedly subsequent security chief in Republika Srpska (a breakaway Serb republic headed by Radovan Karadzic during the 1992-95 Bosnian war). He applied for registration as a health practitioner with the Psychologist’s Registration Board of New South Wales. He was registered as a psychologist in 1994, having provided documentation concerning his qualifications in the former Yugoslavia. He worked as a psychologist in positions in New South Wales and Queensland.
The NSW Health Care Complaints Commission persuasively alleged that Zepinic in preparing medico-legal reports prior to 2009 held out that he was a medical practitioner, using the initials 'MBBS' (the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) after his name, in breach of the
Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW). Elsewhere there are indications he modestly claimed a mere two PhDs.
In 2010 NCAT was also satisfied that Zepinic made false representations that he had medical qualifications to the RANZCP in 1996 and 1998, to the Australian Medical Council in 1997 and 1998 (and also that he had postgraduate qualifications in psychiatry) and the University of Sydney in or about 2005. In addition, in April 1999 he had created an “unauthorised” letter and forged the signature of a colleague at St John of God Hospital Burwood purporting to confirm an offer of a position as “Medical Officer” at the hospital in order to support his application for registration to the NSW Medical Board. He had also given false evidence to Burwood Local Court on 14 April 2008 in stating that he had a Doctor of Medicine from the University of Sarajevo.
NCAT found
Whilst not every act of dishonesty (forgeries, false declarations and a failure to disclose to the Board in this instance) would in itself allow a finding of ‘not of good character’ to be made, the level of dishonesty of the Appellant found by the Tribunal is remarkable. When considered in its totality there is a pattern of the Appellant providing information that would progress his various applications rather than of providing truthful information. His reliance on the difficulties that are expected when leaving a country in the throws [sic] of civil unrest is disingenuous and deceitful. This conduct shows no regard for those people who genuinely hold qualifications to which they have no access because of such upheavals and may be deserving of the trust of a registration authority.
The Tribunal has evidence before it that when the District Court considered a personal injuries claim made by one of the Appellant’s clients in 2001 it was argued that his evidence should be rejected on the basis that there was (at that stage) an allegation that the Appellant was holding himself out as a medical practitioner. On this occasion this argument was rejected. However, the potential for an adverse outcome for a client of the Appellant as a result of the Appellant’s conduct is clearly demonstrated (see volume 1 – exhibit C1, page 58).
The Appellant engaged in a pattern of misleading conduct, providing false information whenever it suited his purposes.
The Appellant forged documents and signatures. He provided the false and misleading information not only to various relevant professional bodies but also to numerous registration authorities. He was prepared to provide this information as statutory declarations and solemn declarations which in some cases were witnessed by Justices of the Peace.
The Appellant made these representations knowingly, for his own purposes and benefit. His aim was to gain professional standing to which he was not entitled. The Tribunal notes the provisions of the Oaths Act 1900 (NSW).
His reliance on his refugee status compounds the abysmal nature of his conduct.
Although the Tribunal has viewed the Particulars cumulatively in forming the view of a reasonable satisfaction as to the conduct demonstrating a lack of good character, there are a number of Particulars that would in and of themselves allow the Tribunal to reach such a finding. The falsification of the letter on the St John of God letterhead and the forging of Ms McCabe’s signature is one such act and the representations made to the effect that he held an undergraduate medical qualification is another.
The conduct occurred over a significant period of time. The Decision of the Board Inquiry indicates that the Appellant was not acting in a manner expected of a professional person. The Appellant has not taken any steps to correct the misleading information he has provided to various entities even after the falsity of the documents was beginning to be uncovered.
Further
The Appellant made blatant and wilful misrepresentations to the Board, to other registration authorities and to other professional organisations. The misrepresentations may well have denied these bodies the opportunities to act appropriately to protect the public and to otherwise carry out their important functions.
The primary function of the Tribunal is to protect the public. Other matters to be considered by the Tribunal as relevant considerations are the maintenance of discipline within the profession, a general deterrent effect and the maintaining of public confidence in the profession. The Tribunal therefore must consider Orders that fulfil these requirements. Whilst it is an established principle of law that the Tribunal should impose the least restrictive Orders possible in the circumstances, the protection of the public is paramount and outweighs consideration of the onerous burdens that Orders may place upon a practitioner. In this matter protection of the reputation of the profession and the maintenance of confidence that the public is entitled to expect in the profession of psychology are prominent considerations.
Given the length of time the Appellant engaged in the deceptive conduct detailed in this matter and the nature of the deficits in character exposed by the findings of this Tribunal the Appellant will require a lengthy period of time to address these issues. The Tribunal will fix a period of five years from the date of the decision during which the Appellant will not be entitled to apply for a review of the Orders.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant lacks the character required to be a registered psychologist; further, he has conducted himself in an improper and unethical manner over a lengthy period of time.
The Tribunal is of the view that conditions on registration would not be appropriate in this matter. Not only is the conduct of the Appellant so appalling that it would attract the most severe criticism, the Appellant has demonstrated he cannot be trusted to act in an honest and truthful manner.
The Appellant poses a significant risk to the public safety, particularly having regard to the manner in which he has repeatedly made false and misleading statements to various regulatory and professional organisations. The Appellant did not attend the Inquiry and has not provided a full and frank account of his conduct to the Tribunal. The conduct of the Appellant extended beyond the profession of psychology, and beyond registration authorities. The Tribunal therefore considers it appropriate to proceed to make a Prohibition Order.
All in all rather damning.
Zepinic did not have the MBBS qualification from the former Yugoslavia and has never been registered in Australia as a surgeon or general practitioner. After conviction and removal from the register (avoiding time in prison) he moved to the United Kingdom, engaging in what would conventionally be characterised as
identity crime.
In August 2013 he was convicted in a jury trial in the Crown Court at Wood Green (UK) of three counts of fraud. The convictions arose from failure to disclose his 2008 convictions in his September 2009 employment application to Queen Mary University London, alongside failure to disclose
- disclose in applications between November 2010 to August 2011 for 22 jobs with National Health Service employers that he had previous convictions and had been removed from the register;
- that removal in his August 2011 application for employment as Board Secretary of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.
Zepinic returned to Australia in October 2016, seeking a reinstatement order so that he could be registered as a psychologist in New South Wales. NCAT understandably refused to make a reinstatement order. Zepinic went to the Supreme Court, arguing several grounds
1: The NCAT erred in delivering its orders and appellant relied on res judicata principle.
2: The NSW Psychologists Tribunal decision against the appellant delivered on 12 August 2010 is based on the falsified certificates [ie the Tribunal had accepted forged documentation].
3: On 10 March 2009, the appellant left Australia and has never been served with any documents regarding ex parte proceedings of the NSW Psychologist’s Tribunal conducted on 24 June 2009, 27 and 28 April 2010, and 2 July 2010.
4: The certificates of alleged criminal conviction forwarded from the NSW Medical Council to the Queen Mary University of London were falsified.
5: Due to the falsified certificates submitted by the NSW Medical Council to the Queen Mary University of London and taken legal proceedings, the appellant has suffered a substantial financial loss, psychological distress upon him and his family, and damages upon his dignity and professional career.
6: NCAT decision delivered on 10 October 2018 has no legal grounds but to make further financial and damages on the appellant’s professional reputation and dignity, and distress upon him and his family.
The Court was satisfied that Zepinic failed to establish any error of law or fact in the NCAT decision regarding reinstatement, commenting
I am satisfied that none of these grounds are made out. Nowhere in Dr Zepinic’s lengthy written submissions, his affidavits or his oral submissions was any error of law in the decision of NCAT identified. Nor, putting to one side the question of leave, was any other ground clearly articulated by Dr Zepinic. Rather, Dr Zepinic’s grounds all sought to challenge an earlier decision of the Psychologists Board in 2010 to deregister him: Zepinic v Psychologists Registration Board of NSW [2010] NSWPST 6. No appeal or judicial review proceedings have ever been brought against that earlier decision.
The appeal was dismissed.
