Health Ombudsman v Chaffey - [2020] QCAT 54

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Chaffey [2020] QCAT 54

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

SARA CHAFFEY

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR096-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 February 2020 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President
Assisted by:
Ms Amara Bains
Ms Mary Barnett

Mr Stephen Lewis

ORDERS:
1. In relation to Allegation 1, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. In relation to Allegation 2, pursuant to s 107(2)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has no case to answer and no further action is to be taken in relation to the matter.

3. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.

4. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b)(i) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal imposes the following condition on the respondent’s registration:

The respondent is to complete an educational course on professional accountability within 12 months.

5. Each party must bear the party’s own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent is a registered nurse – where the referral contains an allegation of professional misconduct and an allegation of unprofessional conduct – where the allegation of professional misconduct relates to the respondent’s commission of a criminal offence of obtaining financial advantage by deception – whether such conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – where the allegation of unprofessional conduct relates to the respondent failing to provide written notice within 7 days to the National Board when she was convicted of the offence as required by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law(Queensland) – whether such conduct should be characterised as unprofessional conduct – what sanction should be imposed for professional misconduct

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 103, s 104, s 107

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 134(2)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law(Queensland), s 5, s 130

Bannister v Walton [1992] NSWCA 21
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Health Ombudsman v Armstrong [2018] QCAT 382
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Hundy [2013] QCAT 691
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v McKenzie [2011] QCAT 338
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Williams [2013] SAHPT 1

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

The Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Self-represented

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

The Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (“the applicant”) has referred a health service complaint against Sara Chaffey (“the respondent”) to the Tribunal pursuant to s 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (“HO Act”). The applicant seeks findings of professional…

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 Chaffey 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: [2020] QCAT 54
Decision Date: 12 February 2020 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Ombudsman referred two allegations to the Tribunal concerning Ms Chaffey, a registered nurse. The first allegation concerned Ms Chaffey's conviction for obtaining financial advantage by deception, and whether this constituted professional misconduct. The second allegation related to Ms Chaffey's failure to notify the National Board of her conviction within seven days, as required by law, and whether this constituted unprofessional conduct. The Tribunal was required to determine the nature of the conduct in question and decide if it amounted to professional or unprofessional misconduct. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider what sanctions, if any, should be imposed.

The Tribunal found that Ms Chaffey's conviction for obtaining financial advantage by deception did indeed constitute professional misconduct, as it demonstrated a breach of professional standards and trust. However, the Tribunal found that Ms Chaffey had no case to answer in relation to the second allegation, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that she intentionally failed to notify the National Board of her conviction within the required timeframe. The Tribunal concluded that the appropriate sanction for the professional misconduct was a reprimand, and that Ms Chaffey should be required to complete an educational course on professional accountability within 12 months.

The Tribunal ordered that Ms Chaffey be reprimanded and required to complete an educational course on professional accountability within 12 months. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the proceeding. The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of maintaining professional standards and accountability in the healthcare industry, and the consequences that can arise from breaches of those standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. In relation to Allegation 2, pursuant to s 107(2)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has no case to answer and no further action is to be taken in relation to the matter.

3. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.

4. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b)(i) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal imposes the following condition on the respondent’s registration:

The respondent is to complete an educational course on professional accountability within 12 months.

5. Each party must bear the party’s own costs of the proceeding.

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.