Charge

On 4 - 6 July 2022, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee against Dr Youssefi registered medical practitioner (the Doctor).

The Charge alleged that the Doctor:

Particular 1 –

• Was convicted in the District Court of Wellington under section 257(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, on one charge of knowingly using a forged document, being an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years in that, in May 2015, in applying for provisional registration in New Zealand, falsified a certificate of good standing from the Malta Medical Council (CRN15085004072).

Particular 3 –

• Between 2 June 2015 and 7 July 2021, responded to feedback about his competence in an inappropriate and disrespectful manner.

Particulars 2 and 4 –

• The acts alleged amounted to malpractice or negligence and brought or is likely to bring discredit to the profession.

A copy of the full charge can be found at 'Appendix A' to the decision. 

Background

The Doctor was provisionally registered with the Malta Medical Council. He faced two disciplinary charges before the Malta Medical Council, arising out of a single incident involving a pelvic examination. The Malta Medical Council found the Doctor guilty of failing to meet the ethical standard requiring that “a doctor shall by his conduct and in all matters set a high standard”. The Doctor was reprimanded and ordered to undergo a year of training or practise under supervision.

When applying for provisional registration in New Zealand, the Doctor falsified a certificate of good standing from the Malta Medical Council by removing a page and editing the first page to remove reference to having been found guilty of an ethics breach and instead said that there were no disciplinary proceedings. He also incorrectly answered a question regarding previous disciplinary proceedings when applying for registration with the Council to imply he had not previously been the subject of disciplinary proceedings.

The Doctor had started working at the Taranaki District Health Board as a PGY-1 house officer on 9 December 2019. On 14 February 2020, Dr Youssefi was suspended, and was invited to attend an investigation meeting on 19 February 2020 to review his suspension and discuss allegations that Dr Youssefi had misrepresented his experience and qualifications on his application for employment and work history in his CV.

Particular 3 alleged that, in this meeting, The Doctor behaved unpleasantly in his interactions with other practitioners, said that his colleagues had bullied him and called one of his colleagues a bully, crazy and biased.  He also said incorrectly, a nurse was so impressed with his performance that she had praised his performance to the Head of Department.

On or about 27 February 2020 the District Health Board withdrew its offer of employment. At the time of hearing, the Doctor has not returned to practice. At this time, he held Provisional General Registration but did not hold a current practising certificate.

Finding

The Tribunal found the charge fully established. 

There was no dispute that the Doctor was convicted of one charge in relation to particular 1 of knowingly using a forged document. The Tribunal found that the conduct that was the subject of the Doctor’s conviction was immoral, illegal, unethical conduct and neglect of his professional duty. It therefore amounts to malpractice.  

In relation to particular 3, the Tribunal found that the Doctor did behave unprofessionally towards his colleagues and found that his response to the matters raised at the meeting were not professional or appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the Doctor’s conduct was a departure from expected standards outlined in Good Practice, which is the expectation to respond constructively if a colleague raises concerns. Therefore, the definition of negligence is met.

Because of the context in which this behaviour occurred, the Tribunal found it unlikely a reasonable member of the public would consider the reputation of the medical profession is lowered by this conduct, and therefore it does not amount to conduct likely to bring discredit to the profession.

When viewed cumulatively the forgery covered by particular 1 and the unprofessional conduct in particular 3 amounts to professional misconduct and warrant a disciplinary sanction. 

Penalty

The Tribunal ordered:

• Conditions imposed on practising certificate when the Doctor returns to practice.
• Censure.
• Payment of costs of the Tribunal and the PCC in the sum of $28,500.

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.