Health Ombudsman v Antley

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read
CITATION: Health Ombudsman v Antley [2016] QCAT 472
PARTIES: Health Ombudsman
(Applicant)
v
Lara Joanne Antley
(Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR230-15
MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 22 November 2016
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Hon J B Thomas AM QC, Judicial Member
Assisted by:
Dr Jane Truscott
Mr Andrew Ian Urquhart
Mr Trevor Leslie Jordan
DELIVERED ON: 19 December 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:

1. Under s 107(2) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), findings are made that:

(a)     the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as alleged in charges 1, 2, 3 and 4, in that she engaged in conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience;

(b)    the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct as alleged in charge 5; and

(c)     the respondent has no case to answer in relation to charge 6, and no further action is to be taken in relation to that matter.

2.    The respondent is reprimanded;

3.    The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for nine months from the date of this order; and

4.    The parties must pay their own costs of these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS – where respondent practitioner stole blank authority prescriptions from her employer and forged prescriptions for drugs of dependence – where the practitioner used the forged prescriptions to obtain drugs of dependence – where the practitioner was subsequently convicted of offences relating to the conduct – where a statement of agreed facts was submitted but the practitioner subsequently withdrew from the proceedings – whether the practitioner engaged in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct – whether an order for costs should be made

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 21(2), s 103(1)(a), s 107(2)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld), s 195
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 102

Cruceru v Medical Board of Australia [2016] QCAT 111, cited
HCC v Robertson [2011] NSWNNT 5, considered
Legal Services Commissioner v Voll [2008] QCA 293, cited
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Mahon (Review and Regulation) [2014] VCAT 403, considered
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (Review and Regulation) v Black [2015] VCAT 1232
Re Hampton 2002] QCA 129, distinguished 
Smith v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] 175 CLR 256, cited
Tamawood Ltd & Anor v Paans [2005] QCA 111, cited

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

RESPONDENT:

APPEARANCES:

Office of the Health Ombudsman for the applicant

Respondent in person

The matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (“QCAT Act”).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Jurisdiction

  1. This is a disciplinary referral concerning the conduct of a registered nurse.

  2. The matter is within the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Antley 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
[2016] QCAT 472
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Health Ombudsman v Antley, the Health Ombudsman pursued disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, a registered medical practitioner, alleging professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct. The Ombudsman claimed the respondent stole blank authority prescriptions from her employer and used them to forge prescriptions for drugs of dependence, subsequently using these forged prescriptions to obtain the drugs. The respondent was later convicted of offences related to this conduct. Although a statement of agreed facts was initially submitted, the respondent later withdrew from the proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct, and whether an order for costs should be made.

The court considered the nature of the respondent's actions, which involved stealing and forging prescriptions for controlled substances, and her subsequent convictions. The court found that the respondent's conduct was substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner. The court held that the respondent's actions constituted professional misconduct under charges 1, 2, 3, and 4, and unprofessional conduct under charge 5. The court dismissed charge 6, finding that the respondent had no case to answer in relation to that matter.

The court issued an order reprimanding the respondent and disqualifying her from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for nine months from the date of the order. The court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings. This decision underscores the gravity of the respondent's actions and the importance of maintaining professional standards within the health care sector.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Under s 107(2) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), findings are made that:

(a) the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as alleged in charges 1, 2, 3 and 4, in that she engaged in conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience;

(b) the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct as alleged in charge 5; and

(c) the respondent has no case to answer in relation to charge 6, and no further action is to be taken in relation to that matter.

2. The respondent is reprimanded;

3. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for nine months from the date of this order; and

4. The parties must pay their own costs of these proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.