Health Ombudsman v Crossfield
[2025] QCAT 364
•23 October 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Health Ombudsman v Crossfield [2025] QCAT 364
PARTIES:
HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (applicant)
v
DAVID ALEXANDER CROSSFIELD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR067-25
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
23 October 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member Reid
Assisted by:
Dr K Dingli
Mr M Moore
Ms A WilsonORDERS:
IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
2. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.
3. Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action imposed by the Health Ombudsman on 22 April 2024 is set aside.
4. There be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – where the respondent was a registered nurse – where the patient approached the respondent and struck him on the side of his face in an attempt to steal the respondent’s access pass – where the respondent and other staff restrained the patient and transitioned the patient to the ground – where the respondent kicked the patient while he was on the ground once – where the parties have reached an agreed position as to the facts, characterisation and sanction – whether the Tribunal is satisfied the proposed sanction is within the permissible range
Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
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
Background
The respondent was a 60 year old registered nurse working at the Cairns Hospital (‘Hospital’) when he was involved in an incident with a 23 year old male (‘patient’). He faces disciplinary action arising from that incident. The parties are agreed the following orders are appropriate:
(a)Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
(b)Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.
(c)Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action imposed by the Health Ombudsman on 22 April 2024 is set aside.
(d)There be no order as to costs.
I agree with the making of those proposed orders and propose to do so.
The respondent was first registered as an enrolled nurse in 2015, and as a registered nurse in 2017 having obtained a Bachelor of Nursing from Queensland University of Technology in that year. He was then 54 years of age and he worked at the Hospital from early 2022.
The conduct that is the subject of the referral
The patient was a 23 year old man with a history of drug induced psychosis, polysubstance abuse and antisocial personality traits.[1] He had an extensive history of contact with mental health services from 2012.[2]
[1]Applicant’s Submissions, filed in the Tribunal 1 August 2025, 4 [25].
[2]Ibid.
In August 2023, he came to the Hospital exhibiting psychotic symptoms and making threats to harm himself and staff. Shortly before 5pm on the material date, he approached the respondent and struck him on the side of his face. He also attempted to take the respondent’s security pass. As a result, staff, including the respondent, restrained the patient. In the course of that restraint, and as the patient was being transitioned to the ground, the respondent kicked him once, striking him in the area of his right buttock/thigh.
The respondent suffered minor swelling and a superficial laceration of his lip as a result of being struck by the patient.
It does not seem the patient suffered any injury himself.
Discussion and sanction
In an interview with the Office of the Health Ombudsman, the respondent said his action in kicking the patient was a “reflex” and was “totally uncharacteristic” of him. He was suspended for a short period but on his return to work, said he felt uncomfortable and unsafe. Subsequently he has resigned from that work doing so on 4 April 2024.
Prior to this and following the making of a complaint to the Health Ombudsman on 27 October 2023,[3] the Hospital suspended the respondent and following a show cause process in February 2024, determined the respondent was guilty of misconduct and:
(a)reprimanded the respondent;
(b)determined he be employed as a base grade registered nurse for the duration of his next contract;
(c)determined that he not be eligible for higher duties for the duration of his next contract; and
(d)that he undergo counselling at his own expense.
[3]Statement of Agreed Facts, filed in the Tribunal 16 July 2025, 4 [25].
Subsequently, the Health Ombudsman investigated and proposed to take immediate registration action by suspending the respondent’s registration. The respondent, after he resigned from his employment on 4 April 2025, submitted to the Health Ombudsman that he was absolutely remorseful and regretted his conduct.[4] He detailed significant rehabilitation that he had undertaken including counselling, completion of an anger management course, training in de-escalation techniques and talking to his general practitioner about ways to minimise his stress.
[4]Ibid 4 [32].
On 22 April 2024, so after his resignation, the Health Ombudsman took immediate registration action by imposing conditions:[5]
(a)requiring him to only practise in employment approved by the Health Ombudsman;
(b)prohibiting him from practising in an authorised mental health service; and
(c)requiring that he be indirectly supervised by another registered health practitioner when practising as a registered nurse.
[5]Ibid 5 [33(a)-(c)].
Those conditions remain in place.
It is important to note that the respondent has suffered significant detriment as a result of his conduct, which was itself inappropriate but reflects human failings which might not be uncommon. It is also noted he has changed the nature of his employment to what appears to be a significantly less stressful role.
He has, I think, suffered enough and I agree that, other than a finding of professional misconduct and a reprimand, no other sanction is necessary.
I make orders as per those sought and referred to above at [1].
0
0
2