Health Ombudsman v Andelkovic - [2022] QCAT 96

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Andelkovic [2022] QCAT 96

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

STEVE ANDELKOVIC

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR030-20 and OCR187-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2022 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

10 March 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Ms Sharyn Hopkins
Mr Stephen Lewis

Ms Margaret Ridley

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the Tribunal decides the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013, the respondent is reprimanded;

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013, the respondent’s registration is cancelled;

4. Pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner until 25 April 2023;

5. Pursuant to s 66(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the immediate registration action made by the Health Ombudsman effective 6 April 2018 be set aside; and

6. Each party bears its own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – where registered nurse defrauded a couple who were his friends over a period of years of over $100,000 – where he was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months suspended after serving 10 months for an operational period of 4 years – where respondent also convicted of 3 offences involving violence and a threat to kill against his estranged wife – where he was sentenced to community based orders by another judge – where second episode of offending occurred after the first but before he was sentenced for the fraud – where parties agree as to the facts – where two referrals are before the Tribunal relating to each episode of offending – where the respondent failed to notify the Board when charged with the fraud – where he says he asked police to do that – whether conduct amounts to professional misconduct – where a psychiatrist at the direction of Aprha diagnosed the respondent as having a psychotic mental illness undiagnosed since he was 19 – where the doctor opined that the mental illness was not related to either episode of offending – whether respondent is now a fit and proper person to hold registration – whether the evidence supports a finding that he has insight into his offending and shows remorse for it – where operational period does not expire until 26^th April 2023

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) s 130

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 66, 107

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1936) 60 CLR 336

Council forRegulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Medical Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87

Ex parte Tziniolis Re The Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448

Health Care Complaints…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Andelkovic and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QCAT 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was a disciplinary complaint brought by the Health Ombudsman against Steve Andelkovic, a registered nurse, regarding his professional conduct. The Health Ombudsman alleged that Andelkovic had engaged in professional misconduct through two separate incidents: an aggravated fraud against friends and three separate offences of violence and threats against his estranged wife. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Andelkovic's conduct amounted to professional misconduct under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) and, if so, what sanctions should be imposed.

The court found that Andelkovic's conduct was indeed professional misconduct. In the first instance, the court highlighted the dishonest and fraudulent nature of the conduct, the significant breach of trust, and the impact on the victims. In the second instance, the court emphasised the criminal nature of the violence and threats, the domestic setting of the offences, and the fear induced in the victims. The court also considered the definition of "professional misconduct" under the National Law and found that Andelkovic's conduct was inconsistent with being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the nursing profession.

Regarding sanctions, the court considered factors such as personal and general deterrence, maintenance of professional standards, and the degree to which Andelkovic had developed insight into his conduct. While Andelkovic had demonstrated some insight and remorse, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that he had been rehabilitated or reformed, or that he had developed genuine insight into his offending. The court also noted the need for both specific and general deterrence, as Andelkovic's conduct was persistent and motivated by greed. In light of these considerations, the court decided to cancel Andelkovic's registration and disqualify him from applying for registration for a significant period.

The final orders made by the Tribunal were: (1) Andelkovic had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct; (2) Andelkovic was reprimanded; (3) Andelkovic's registration was cancelled; (4) Andelkovic was disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner until 25 April 2023; (5) the immediate registration action made by the Health Ombudsman effective 6 April 2018 was set aside; and (6) each party bore its own costs of the proceeding.

Orders