Pharmacist to pay $35k in costs
A Waikato pharmacist has been censured and ordered to pay $35,400 in legal costs after being found guilty of professional misconduct.
The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found him guilty of professional misconduct for a number of incidents investigated by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the Pharmacy Council.
These actions included dispensing incorrect medication for a prescription, failing to notice an incorrect medication instruction label, leaving the pharmacy unattended contrary to obligations as a sole charge pharmacist, and asking colleagues to lie to their employers about his whereabouts during these absences.
Interim name suppression has been extended for another seven days to allow the pharmacist to discuss the hearing outcome with his family.
Tribunal chair David Carden said censure was appropriate to express the tribunal’s ‘‘disquiet’’ about the misconduct. The tribunal imposed three conditions on the pharmacist’s return to work. He cannot be the manager or in sole charge of a pharmacy for a period of four weeks, he must work under a supervisor approved by the Pharmacy Council for four weeks, and complete an approved training course addressing professional and ethical obligations within six weeks of his return to work.
An order for suspension serves no purpose now when the conduct occurred a long time ago, Carden said.
‘‘It is our hope and expectation you will embark...in a professional and competent way, taking advantage of these conditions.’’ he said, addressing the pharmacist.
In her submissions, counsel for the PCC Anita Miller sought a three to six month suspension for the pharmacist, stating the misconduct was a ‘‘clear breach of ethical obligations’’.
These were failures of basic practice such as checking and signing prescriptions and showed dishonesty by asking colleagues to lie about absences, she said.
‘‘The public have a clear expectation that pharmacists are honest and trustworthy,’’ she said
Defence counsel Harry Waalkens QC said there was no reason for the tribunal to ‘‘put the boot in’’ in their penalty.
As the incidents occurred in 2013-2014, it had been four and a half years until charges were laid. During that time the pharmacist had faced ‘‘unimaginable stress’’ and reflected on his actions, he said.
The pharmacist had not worked in the profession since and had been unable to get a job as a pharmacist, he said.