Health Ombudsman v DeCelis

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v DeCelis [2019] QCAT 140

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

MICHAEL DECELIS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR177-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matter

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Decision: 5 April 2019

Date of Amended Decision: 2 May 2019 Date of Publication of Reasons: 5 June 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President

Assisted by: Ms N Cawcutt Dr G Neilson Mr R Smith

ORDERS:

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

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

3.        No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS

–     DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – MISCONDUCT

IN PROFESSIONAL RESPECT – where the respondent was a pharmacist – where disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the respondent in relation to dishonestly obtaining pharmaceutical cocaine for his own use – where the respondent has fully cooperated with the proceedings

–      where the respondent concedes that the conduct is professional misconduct - where the parties have provided joint submissions – whether the sanction proposed is appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2019 (Qld), s 4, s 107

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld), s 130

Medical Board of Australia v Davis [2018] QCAT 215 Medical Board of Australia v Dolar [2012] QCAT 271 Medical Board of Australia v Fitzgerald [2014] QCAT 425
Medical Board of Australia v Holding [2014] QCAT 632 Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376 Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Director of Proceedings, on behalf of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Potts Lawyers

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. The respondent was a registered pharmacist in the first half of 2015 when he used his employment as a pharmacist to dishonestly obtain cocaine for his own use. The respondent altered pharmacy records to avoid detection of his conduct. The respondent ceased his conduct of his own volition in mid-2015, quit his job at the pharmacy and sought treatment for his drug addiction and mental health. He was later charged and convicted in the Supreme Court of offences of dishonesty and possession of dangerous drugs because of his conduct, and was made subject to lengthy probation and community service orders. The applicant has referred disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal because of the respondent’s conduct. The respondent has not been registered as a pharmacist since 2015. He has since completed a medical degree and been granted provisional registration as a medical practitioner subject to conditions.

2. There is no dispute between the parties as to the relevant facts, including the details of the conduct alleged to constitute professional misconduct, its characterisation as professional misconduct and appropriate orders by way of…