Health Ombudsman v Brown

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Brown [2020] QCAT 220

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

ERIN BROWN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR227-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 May 2020 (Ex Tempore)

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Robertson
Assisted by:
Ms C Elliott
Dr K Forrester
Mr S Lewis

ORDERS:

1.   The Tribunal finds that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct; 

2.   The respondent is reprimanded; 

3.   Each party bear their own costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was a registered nurse – where the respondent stole drugs and made false entries into drug registers – where the respondent made full admissions and pleaded guilty in the Magistrates court – where the parties agree to sanction – whether to grant a non-publication order

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 107

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66

Cutbush v Team Maree Property Services (3) [2010] QCATA 89

Health Ombudsman v HSK [2018] QCAT 419

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v  Mahon [2014] VCAT 403

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Robertson O’Gorman
APPEARANCES:	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. On the 28th of June 2019, the applicant Director referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal, pursuant to s 103(1)(c) and s 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act (2013) (the Act). 

2. The applicant seeks as finding that the respondent, who was a registered nurse and health service provider at all material times, has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as defined by s 5 of the National Law. By way of disciplinary sanction, the applicant seeks an order pursuant to s 107(3) of the Act that the respondent be reprimanded. The respondent does not oppose the finding that she has engaged in professional misconduct, nor the orders sought by the applicant by way of sanction as set out in her lawyer’s submission filed on the 17th of January 2020.

3. The respondent, in a submission filed after the 17th of January 2020, seeks a non-publication order pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2019 (Qld) (the QCAT Act) based on a short report from her treating psychiatrist dated the 24th of February 2020. The applicant opposes the making of such an order, and I will deal with the application at the end of these reasons.

4. The allegation of professional misconduct is founded on the statement of agreed facts filed jointly by the parties on the 10th of October 2019. 

5. At the time of the impugned conduct, the respondent was aged 31 years.  She is now 37.  She holds a Bachelor of Nursing, which she obtained in 2012.  She was first granted registration…