Health Ombudsman v Dower - [2021] QCAT 177

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Dower [2021] QCAT 177

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

SUSANE MARIE DOWER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR326-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 May 2021 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Mr Stephen Lewis
Mr James McNab

Ms Margaret Ridley

ORDERS:

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

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was registered as an endorsed enrolled nurse – where the respondent committed boundary violations by entering into a relationship with a former patient – whether such conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – inordinate delay by Director of Proceedings of the Office of the Health Ombudsman in prosecution of health service complaint – what sanction should be imposed

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

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 5

Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] 79 SASR 54

Health Ombudsman v Bothwell [2020] QCAT 393
Health Ombudsman v Gascard [2020] QCAT 264
Health Ombudsman v Hastie [2021] QCAT 59
Health Ombudsman v Jolley [2019] QCAT 173

Nursing Administrative Board of Australia v Adam [2020] SACAT 48

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C Templeton instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

This is a referral of a health service complaint against Susane Marie Dower (respondent) pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act) by the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (applicant).
The applicant alleges, in the referral filed 30 September 2019, that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and seeks orders for sanction. The respondent has chosen not to engage in the proceedings. She has been served with all the material before the Tribunal after an order was made for substituted service upon the respondent. The respondent has not appeared at the hearing, either in person or by telephone or video link, despite being given notice of the hearing.
The respondent is 45 years old. She obtained a diploma of nursing in 2014, and was registered as an enrolled nurse on 14 May 2014. The respondent’s registration lapsed after she failed to renew her registration on or before 30 June 2020, and she is not currently registered as a health practitioner.
The respondent has no prior disciplinary history. At the time of the conduct the subject of the referral, the respondent was employed on both a contract and temporary casual basis as an endorsed enrolled nurse by West Moreton Hospital and Health Service at Ipswich Hospital and the Park Centre for Mental Health…

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 Dower 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: [2021] QCAT 177
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) dealt with a case involving the Health Ombudsman as the applicant and Susane Marie Dower as the respondent. The Health Ombudsman filed a referral against Dower, alleging professional misconduct based on her conduct involving a former patient. Dower, who was a registered enrolled nurse, was accused of entering into a relationship with a patient she had treated after his discharge from the hospital, violating professional boundaries. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Dower's actions constituted professional misconduct and deciding on an appropriate sanction.

Dower's conduct in question was her relationship with a patient, which began shortly after his discharge from hospital. The Tribunal examined whether this conduct breached professional standards, particularly the Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses in Australia, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining professional boundaries with patients. The Tribunal concluded that Dower's actions were unprofessional and fell below the standards expected of a nurse with her level of training and experience.

In considering the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal acknowledged the serious nature of Dower's breach but also noted the significant personal and professional consequences she had already faced as a result of her actions. These consequences included losing her job, suffering physical, psychological, and emotional trauma, and experiencing severe financial difficulties. The Tribunal found that the purposes of sanction, including protection of the public, assurance of professional standards, and denunciation of the misconduct, were sufficiently addressed by a reprimand without the need for further preclusion from practice. The delay in the proceedings by the Health Ombudsman was also considered a mitigating factor.

The Tribunal issued an order reprimanding Dower and decided against imposing a period of disqualification from reregistration, considering the extensive personal and professional consequences she had already endured. The reprimand serves as a public denunciation of Dower's conduct, emphasizing the importance of maintaining professional boundaries in the nursing profession.

Orders