Health Ombudsman Applicant v Vte Respondent
[2024] QCAT 243
•25 JULY 2024
| [2024] QCAT 243 | |
| QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | |
| REID, Judicial Member | |
| Assisted by: | |
| DR WOODCHEW | |
| DR MANOHARAN | |
| MR DAVIES | |
| OCR 188 of 2023 | |
| HEALTH OMBUDSMAN | |
| Applicant | |
| v | |
| VTE | |
| Respondent | |
| BRISBANE | |
| THURSDAY, 25 JULY 2024 | |
| REASONS FOR DECISION | |
JUDICIAL MEMBER: This case concerns a young medical practitioner who is now 31 years of age. He engaged in a number of fraudulent medical certificates to an associate in order to have the associate avoid the consequences of breaching bail conditions for non-attendance at a police station.
As a result of the issue of the medical certificates, which were false, he was not prosecuted for those breaches of bail. The Respondent before me has subsequently pleaded guilty to some number of offences and was, before the Magistrates Court on 5 May 2023, ordered to pay a fine of $3500 in respect of five counts of forgery and four counts of fraud. No convictions were recorded for any of the offences.
Before me, the parties have agreed and jointly submit that the appropriate orders, which I will make, are:
(a)pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the Act), in respect to the allegation, the Tribunal decides that the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;
(b)pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Act, the Respondent is reprimanded;
(c)pursuant to section 107(3)(b) of the Act, the Board imposes conditions on the Respondent’s registration as set out in the enclosed schedule of conditions;
(d)pursuant to section 107(3)(c) of the Act, the Respondent is to pay a fine of $10,000 to the Health Ombudsman within one months from the date of the order; and
(e)each party must pay their own costs of the proceedings.
I attach a copy of the schedule of conditions, which was attached to those submissions, to this judgment.
There has been significant discussion between myself and the members of the panel about the circumstances of this case, and in particular, about two matters:
(a)the desirability of there being a non-publication order to ensure that the Respondent’s name is not specifically identified in any judgment; and
(b)the need for this matter to be brought to the attention of health authorities in Queensland so that young medical practitioners can understand the importance of not engaging in conduct such as the Respondent here engaged in.
It is important to understand also that the falsification of the medical certificates in this case did not simply relate to the issue of the medical certificate that was needed to be used to claim a day’s wages, for example, as a result of an alleged medical condition which was false.
Here, as the Respondent knew, the medical certificates were to be used to justify a person’s non-attendance at a police station, which was a condition of his bail. In that way, it can be seen that the breach here involved something akin to an attempt to pervert the course of justice; a much more serious matter than the issue of a certificate relating to claiming wages. That, of course, would itself be significant, but the circumstances of this case are, in my view, significantly more serious.
I think it highly desirable that the circumstances of this case be brought to the attention of medical certificates so that young doctors who might be somewhat tempted to engage in similar conduct in the future, involving the swearing of false medical certificates, understand the very significant effects it might have upon one’s future career.
As a result of our discussions, I also think it appropriate to make an order under s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). That section provides that the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of the following, other than in the way and to the persons, stated in the order:
(a)the contents of a document or other thing produced to the tribunal;
(b)evidence given before the tribunal;
(c)information that may enable a person who has appeared before the tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified.[1]
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 66(1)(a)-(c).
The Tribunal may make an order pursuant to subsection (2)(e):
...only if the tribunal considers the order is necessary for any other reason in the interests of justice.[2]
[2] Ibid s 66(2)(e).
In my view, the interests of justice do not require the identification of the Respondent in this case. While the circumstances of the offending are a matter of significant importance in the training of young doctors, and the imposition of the penalty imposed is a matter of importance in respect of issues of both personal and general deterrence, I do not think the identification of the Respondent himself, as an individual, is a matter in which the public has any significant interest.
In the circumstances, in addition to the orders made, I will make a non-publication order.
0
0
0