Chiropractic Board of Australia v Cvetanovic [2026] QCAT 181

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Chiropractic Board of Australia v Cvetanovic [2026] QCAT 181 PARTIES: CHIROPRACTIC BOARD OF AUSTRALIA (applicant) v ALEKSA CVETANOVIC (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: OCR295-24 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 12 May 2026 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member Jones Assisted by: Dr R Bailey Ms J Felton Dr M McEwan ORDERS: IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT: Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), in respect of grounds 1, 3 and 4 the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(ii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), in respect of ground 2 the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct. Pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent is reprimanded. Pursuant to section 196(2)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), a condition is placed on the respondent’s registration in the following terms: the Respondent is to provide a certificate of currency of professional indemnity insurance to the Board and/or AHPRA annually for a period of five (5) years. -- 1 of 5 -- 2 Pursuant to section 196(2)(c) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent is fined $2,000, to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order. CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – CHIROPRACTORS – where respondent a registered chiropractor – where respondent failed to maintain professional indemnity insurance while working as chiropractor and give appropriate notice to Board of lapse of insurance – where parties agreed on facts, characterisation and sanction – whether proposed characterisation and sanctions appropriate Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 196(1)(b)(ii), s 196(1)(b)(iii), s 196(2)(a), s 196(2)(b), s 196(2)(c) Chiropractic Board of Australia v Ronan [2024] QCAT 463 Psychology Board of Australia v McDonald (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 158 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This proceeding is concerned with an application brought by the Chiropractic Board of Australia (‘applicant’) against Aleksa Cvetanovich (‘respondent’) who, at all material times, was a registered chiropractor. The allegations that bring the respondent before the Tribunal can be summarised as follows: (a) Ground one: the respondent practised as a chiropractor without having appropriate professional indemnity insurance arrangements in force in respect of his practice in contravention of section 129 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’). (b) Ground two: the respondent failed to give the board written notice that he no longer had appropriate professional indemnity insurance arrangements in place within seven days of becoming aware of that fact in contravention of section 130(1) of the National Law. (c) Ground three: declarations made by the respondent in his registration renewal applications where he had declared in the previous registration period that he had met all the Board’s registration standards for professional indemnity insurance arrangements, despite such insurance arrangements being cancelled for the relevant period. (d) Ground four: in correspondence dated 20 January 2022, the respondent provided false and/or misleading information to the Australia Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (‘AHPRA’) and/or the Board in writing to the effect “I have never had this happen before”. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 [2] Those allegations are not disputed by the respondent nor is the fact that at all material times, he was employed and or was working as a chiropractor. Relevantly between February 2016 and May 2023 the respondent’s professional indemnity insurance had been cancelled on 12 occasions. [3] Each of the cancellations occurred due to non-payment of premiums, on: (a) 11 February 2016 – reinstated on 19 February 2016; (b) 10 April 2016 – reinstated on 11 April 2016; (c) 10 September 2016 – reinstated on 12 September 2016; (d) 10 January 2017 – reinstated on 17 January 2017; (e) 11 July 2017 – reinstated on 13 July 2017; (f) 2 November 2017 – reinstated on 2 November 2017; (g) 4 March 2018 – reinstated on 5 March 2018; (h) 2 January 2019 – policy not reinstated; (i) 29 April 2021 – reinstated on 28 May 2021; (j) 29 August 2021 – reinstated on 8 September 2021; (k) 30 October 2021 – policy not reinstated; (l) 28 April 2023 – reinstated on 12 May 2023. [4] It would seem that the more serious lapses occurred during times of personal difficulties on the part of the respondent. Those personal circumstances are set out in some detail in the respondent’s correspondence dated 30 June 2023, where the respondent by way of conclusion said I don’t have an independent recollection of all of the following periods of concern identified. However, it can be safely assumed that (a) in the case of the periods of concern that are relatively short, I became aware of the notice of cancellation soon after it was sent to my email address; and (b) in the case of the lengthier periods of concern, I would have been distracted with extenuating life events and genuinely missed the automated notices. However, on each of those occasions as soon as I became aware of the issue I would have attended to it immediately and rectified the outstanding payments as soon as possible. [5] None of the extenuating circumstances to which the respondent referred in that correspondence dated 30 June 2023 was put in issue by the applicant. That such extenuating circumstances existed at the time of course does not provide an excuse, but it does provide some relevant background as to the circumstances surrounding the respondent’s conduct at the relevant time. Initially in the statement of agreed and disputed facts, while there were a number of material matters not put in issue on the part of the respondent, there remained a number of particulars of the allegations that were put in issue. However, in the respondent’s subsequent written submissions, it was said -- 3 of 5 -- 4 By an amended referral filed 1 August 2025, the Chiropractic Board of Australia (the Board), alleges that [the respondent] engaged in professional misconduct, or alternatively unprofessional conduct by (in broad terms, practising as a chiropractor while his professional indemnity insurance had lapsed). The conduct the subject of the proceedings also includes [the respondent’s] failure to notify the Board of his insurance being cancelled during certain periods, and [the respondent] providing false or misleading information to the Board or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency about his insurance. [The respondent’s] amended responses to the referral, and a statement of agreed and disputed facts prepared by the parties, indicated that the facts and allegations were partially disputed. Principally, that dispute concerned the significance of [the respondent] having, on all but one occasion, reinstated his professional indemnity insurance with retrospective effect from the date the cancellation took effect. [The respondent] no longer contends that the reinstatements of his insurance with retrospective effect rectified the concerns with his insurance lapsing. He now admits all of the alleged grounds and the material facts, such that there is no remaining dispute as to the facts. Where the referral alleges alternatives, the admissions are made on the following bases… [6] Not only are there no factual issues in dispute, the parties are also in agreement about what the relevant findings and consequential orders ought be. On the part of the respondent it was submitted that ‘subject to one minor matter of clarification’ there were no factual matters in dispute. It is not necessary to dwell on that matter of clarification as it would in no way affect the final outcome. While the respondent’s conduct concerning maintaining current professional indemnity insurance is of concern, there has been no subsequent failure on the part of the respondent since April/May 2023 and prior to the subject conduct, he had not been the subject of any previous disciplinary action. [7] The failure to maintain appropriate current professional indemnity is a matter of real consequence. In Psychology Board of Australia v McDonald (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 158 it was said: These allegations might be said to be merely administrative but they are far more serious than that. They go to the very structure of the profession having protection for those who avail themselves of the services of members of the profession and also to the regulation of the profession by the regulatory authorities in such a manner that ensures that the public is protected.1 [8] That the respondent will now be required to provide evidence of current professional insurance for the next five years should provide the public with a degree of reassurance concerning that aspect of the respondent’s professional practice. [9] As the parties correctly pointed out that there is agreement about the appropriate findings and orders that ought be made is a significant factor to be taken into account, particularly where the parties are both legally represented and the orders sought fall within the permissible range of sanctions given the conduct involved. On balance, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the findings and orders agreed to by the parties ought be adopted. 1 See also Chiropractic Board of Australia v Ronan [2024] QCAT 463. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 [10] Accordingly it is the decision of the Tribunal that: 1. Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, in respect of grounds 1, 3 and 4 the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. 2. Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(ii) of the National Law, in respect of ground 2 the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct. 3. Pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded. 4. Pursuant to section 196(2)(b) of the National Law, a condition is placed on the respondent’s registration in the following terms: the Respondent is to provide a certificate of currency of professional indemnity insurance to the Board and/or AHPRA annually for a period of five (5) years. 5. Pursuant to section 196(2)(c) of the National Law, the respondent is fined $2,000, to be paid within 28 days of the date of this order. -- 5 of 5 --