Health Ombudsman Applicant v Lee-Ann Olga Chambers
[2023] QCAT 558
•23 NOVEMBER 2023
| [2023] QCAT 558 |
| QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL |
| REID, Judicial Member |
| Assisted by: |
| DR FORRESTER |
| MR HALLIDAY |
| MS MCKIBBIN |
| OCR096-23 |
| HEALTH OMBUDSMAN |
| Applicant |
| v |
| LEE-ANN OLGA CHAMBERS |
| Respondent |
| BRISBANE |
| THURSDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2023 |
| REASONS FOR DECISION |
JUDICIAL MEMBER: In this matter, the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman seeks orders as set out in paragraph 107 of its written submissions filed in the Tribunal. The matter arises from an occasion on which the respondent, who was born on 1 August 1972, so is now 51 years of age, was employed as a nurse at the Trinder Park Nursing Home.
It seems obvious that she took a credit card belonging to a resident at that nursing home, who was himself born on [redacted], and further, he was very significantly dependant on nursing care and on the honesty of people who were required to care for him, both physically and emotionally. On this occasion, she took that credit card and used it on seven occasions between 11 and 14 July 2022 at various stores: Kmart, Coles, ALDI, Woolworths and similar.
The total amount of goods purchased on the credit card, which she had no authority to use, amounted to $980.44. She was subsequently convicted of those seven offences and of the additional offence of possessing tainted property in proceedings in the Magistrates Court. She was fined and no conviction was recorded. The fact that no conviction was recorded is somewhat surprising in my view, because she had a relevant and significant criminal history.
In March 1996, she was convicted and fined in respect of an offence of stealing shop goods. Subsequently, in November 1998, she was dealt with for four stealing offences, and restitution in the sum of $1,000 was ordered. When this matter came before the Magistrates Court, the magistrate was not made aware, it seems to me, of what seems to be an offence of dishonesty, which related to social security fraud, in which she was ordered to make reparation of some $26,998. A 12-month intensive conditional order was made.
It may be that the fact that the magistrate did not record a conviction in this offence arose because he was unaware of that significant offence and would therefore have thought that this was the first offence committed by her since November 1998. In addition, a perusal of the material indicates that after she became, first, an enrolled nurse in 2005, prior to her obtaining registration as a nurse, she was required by the Board to provide a report from her employer indicating that she was trustworthy with clients’ property.
No doubt, the Board’s approach in this matter was motivated by those two offences in March 1996 and November 1998, to which I have earlier referred. It seems that because of embarrassment and asking your employer about these matters, she attempted to defraud the Board by producing a forged document. All of those are not directly relevant to these proceedings but do give an indication that Ms Chambers is a person who is, in many respects, untrustworthy and ought not to be entrusted, in my view, with working with patients – particularly, elderly patients such as the victim in this case – who are very vulnerable.
Ultimately, it is a matter for the Board if she ever applies for re-registration, but in my view the Board should look carefully at the matter before me and my remarks. My remarks echo the view of the assessors sitting with me with whom I have discuss these matters, including the fact that I was going to refer to this in my judgment. With that in mind, it is my view that the Board would be reluctant to ever admit her again as a nurse unless she had sought significant professional help and was able to show a significant change in her behaviour and understanding of the vulnerability of such people.
In the circumstances, I propose to make orders as per paragraph 107 of the helpful submissions of Ms Tran in this matter. Indeed, the only dispute that the respondent had with any of the orders sought was that she sought a non-publication order. In a letter, she indicated that this was because of domestic violence. As I indicated to Ms Tran during the course of discussion about this matter, there is absolutely no evidence before me, either as to the nature of any such domestic violence or as to why a non-publication order would be required. In the circumstances, I do not propose to make a non-publication order.
I will therefore make orders that:
Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), in respect to Allegations 1 and 2, the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.
Pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent’s registration is cancelled.
Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of two (2) years from the date of this order.
Pursuant to section 107(4)(b)(i) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is prohibited from providing any health service until she obtains registration as a health practitioner.
Pursuant to section 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the decision of the Health Ombudsman to suspend the respondent’s registration dated 17 April 2023 is set aside.
Each party must bear their own costs of the proceedings.
0
0
0