Case Study Analysis: Psychology Board of Australia v Coleman, 2018

This case study analyzes the Psychology Board of Australia v Coleman [2012] VCAT 1768, focusing on an experienced psychologist's unprofessional conduct. The psychologist violated the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 and the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 by employing a former patient, terminating the clinical relationship improperly, altering patient records, and potentially breaching patient confidentiality. The analysis highlights unethical behaviors such as falsifying records and socializing with the patient. The VCAT's findings and the importance of adhering to ethical codes of conduct are discussed, emphasizing the repercussions of unprofessional actions within the field of psychology. The case underscores the significance of maintaining ethical standards and professional boundaries in clinical practice, especially concerning patient confidentiality and record-keeping.

[Professionalism]
2018

Student Name
Student ID
Professor Name
Course Title
University Name
Date

Introduction
The case is related to the unprofessional conduct of the Psychology Board of Australia v
Coleman [2012] VCAT 1768, in which the experienced psychologist who was part of the
regional Victoria have violated the codes and conducts of the Health Practitioner Regulation
National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 and Health Professions Registration Act 2005.
Summarize the Case
The case pertains to experienced psychologist in the regional Victoria who have violated the
unprofessional conduct of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009
along with the violation of the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 who have wrongfully
employed the former patient within the clinic premises for the 18 months following which the
psychologist than terminated the clinical relationship. It was discovered by the VCAT that there
were unintentional C’s motives which were pretty altruistic in nature but later on found out that
she had "little knowledge with respect to the ethical responsibilities along with the
unprofessional behavior related to the no knowledge of the codes and the recent guidelines with
regards to the multiple relationships"; It was then on the basis of the unilaterally terminating
while doing a patient’s treatment, following which there was a failure in relation to the advanced
notice with regards to the proper procedure of the termination; along with wrongfully proceeding
to alter the patient records.
It was during the termination of the relationship that the C psychologist then proceeded to refer
and alter the notes as provided from the last consultation along with modifying them without
advanced notice in order to show that there had been no further appointments with regards to the
patient case. By definition the professionalism means a medical professionalism in which there

are a set of belief system through which the group members (“professionals”) can ethically
declare (“profess”) to each other along with publicly sharing that there would be shared
competency standards along with it following of the ethical values, which can proceed to
promise with respect to their work along with it, what the public and individual patients need to
also expect from medical professionals.
Being professional means, one needs to follow the codes of ethics and conducts related to the
professional career and set of standards.
Analysis why the case occurred
In this case of VCAT versus the experienced psychologist of the regional Victoria had
wrongfully advanced to make alterations in order to reflect the correction and the modification of
the record and also to show that the advancement made for the alterations can also reflect that
they were accurate. Due to such unethical and the unprofessional behavior of the psychologist,
that such allegation was also rejected and C lied with respect to the Board and falsified the
claims that there had been no further appointments were conducted in order to ensure that the
fact remains with the inconsistent notes of the original version. Such allegations were also
considered as baseless along with the fact that the C psychologist was observed to be socializing
with the patient along with giving her a housewarming gift. Such claims were also rejected due
to the unethical ways in the work context. The VCAT has also rejected allegations that they
have enticed and observed that the C breached with respect to the patient’s confidentiality in
order to disclose and reflect that there had been a patient’s chronic fatigue syndrome. This was
also conveyed to the employees at the clinic. This fact was also told by the patient and the
message was conveyed to the colleagues herself. It was also evident that the VCAT rejected

allegation with respect to the C attempt in order to persuade the patient so that the patient can
also proceed to buy a share of the practice (Sinden, 2013). It was seen that the VCAT adjourned
with respect to the matter for submissions in order to redetermine the case. In this case, the
altering of notes was considered as highly unprofessional along with the fact that the VCAT has
also evidently found that the C’s evidence should have followed the code of conduct prescribed.

References
Sinden, Peter, 2013, Primary Sources of Law, lecture notes distributed in Introduction to
LAWS1104 at The University of Western Australia, Crawley (at 2 November 2013)