Pharmacy News
Psychiatrist disqualified over fake prescriptions
By Chris Brooker
February 4, 2015

Suite 9/172 Pacific Highway, Swansea, New South Wales

Kim John Street of Suite 9/172 Pacific Highway, Swansea, New South Wales

A psychiatrist and former GP who fabricated patient prescriptions and collected medications from pharmacists for his own use has had his registration cancelled.

The psychiatrist was disqualified for 18 months by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal in late 2014 following four specific complaints relating to abuse of prescription authority, keeping of records, professional misconduct and other charges, court documents reveal.

At a Medical Council of NSW hearing, the psychiatrist admitted to having “’self-administered’ Schedule 8 drugs of addiction, mainly Dexamphetamine, and he done so over a long period of time. He admitted that he had fabricated patient prescriptions to support his activities, and that he had obtained the drugs from pharmacists pretending that he was picking them up on behalf of patients”.

He also admitted to having prescribed Dexamphetamine for patients where that was contra-indicated.

Another psychiatrist who treated the respondent told the Tribunal he “gave me further information about his misuse of dexamphetamine that had gone largely undetected for about 10 years and involved using eight different pharmacies”.

While practising as a psychiatrist from 2002-2012 the defendant had an addiction to drugs of varying intensity.

In 2012 he was the subject of an impaired registrants hearing before the Medical Council. The Council imposed strict conditions on his continuation in practice, covering the period 3 July 2012 to 28 February 2013.

He surrendered his registration at the end of that period.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent, now aged 61, had taken “the positive step of withdrawing from practice in February 2013, and has concentrated on rehabilitation in the meantime”.

“We have decided to reduce the disqualification period to eighteen months in recognition of the likelihood that any career that he might be allowed in future will be only one of a few years and in acknowledgement of his co-operation by not challenging the allegations made against him,” the Court concluded.

“There is, of course, no right to be reinstated to the register at the end of a disqualification period. He will have to satisfy the Board that he should be reinstated”.

Kim John Street