Health Ombudsman v Cassingham

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Cassingham [2019] QCAT 358

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

THOMAS BRIAN CASSINGHAM

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR113-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DATE OF DECISION:

26 November 2019

DATE OF REASONS:

5 December 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President

Assisted by:
Ms A Bains
Ms K Huxhagen
Mr K Hargreaves

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2019 (Qld), the Tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2019 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded. 

3.   Each party must bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – MISCONDUCT IN PROFESSIONAL RESPECT – where the applicant instituted disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for criminal conduct – where the criminal conduct involved the respondent’s conviction on his own pleas of guilty for one offence of fraud, three offences of forgery, two offences of uttering a forged document, two offences of stealing as a servant and one offence of fraudulently falsifying a record – where the respondent engaged in the conduct for the purpose of obtaining oxycodone for his own use – where the respondent had developed a reliance upon opioids following a serious shoulder injury – where the use of opioids assisted in the management of the respondent’s physical symptoms as well as symptoms of undiagnosed mental health problems – where the respondent has cooperated in the proceedings – where the respondent has undergone appropriate treatment for his health issues – where the respondent has served a de facto suspension of approximately four years – where the parties agree as to the characterisation of the conduct as professional misconduct – where the parties agree as to the appropriate sanction – whether the sanction proposed is appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 103, s 104, s 107
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 5

Health Ombudsman v DeCelis [2019] QCAT 140
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Chrenowski [2011] SAHPT 26
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Christie [2016] QCAT 291
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Dougherty [2014] SAHPT 6

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	V Dutta (sol) of the Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (“the applicant”) referred a health service complaint against Thomas Brian Cassingham (“the respondent”) to the Tribunal pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (“HO Act”). At the request of the parties, the matter was heard and determined on the papers and, on 26 November 2019, the Tribunal made the above orders. These are the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision.