Health Ombudsman v Eggerling

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Eggerling [2022] QCAT 80

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

DARREN WILLIAM EGGERLING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR303-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2022

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Mr Brent Dixon
Ms Suzanne Harrop

Ms Sharyn Hopkins

ORDERS:

1. A finding that the conduct of the Respondent constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013 (Qld).

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) that the Respondent be reprimanded.

3.     Each party must bear their own costs for the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – where the respondent was a registered nurse – where the respondent failed to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in a sexual relationship with a patient – where the respondent admits the allegations but otherwise has not engaged in the disciplinary proceedings – whether a reprimand and/or three month period of suspension is appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 107

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law) s 5, s 41

Health Ombudsman v Bothwell [2020] QCAT 393

Health Ombudsman v Evans [2016] QCAT 77
Health Ombudsman v HSK [2018] QCAT 419
Health Ombudsman v Jolley [2019] QCAT 173
Health Ombudsman v Wood [2019] QCAT 35

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

  1. On 29 September 2020, the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (the applicant) referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal. The referral contains one allegation; that over a period from 1 May 2019 until approximately 28 June 2019, the respondent, a registered nurse then employed at a medical centre in Morayfield, failed to maintain professional boundaries with a female patient (patient A).

    The relevant conduct and background

  2. On 1 May 2019, patient A attended the practice for medical treatment in relation to an injury to her foot. During this attendance the respondent provided clinical care and treatment to patient A, including administering pain relief and saline. On 9 May 2019, patient A attended the practice, and the respondent applied a cast to patient A’s lower leg.

  3. On a date in early May 2019, the respondent gave patient A his phone number and/or patient A gave the respondent her phone number. Commencing on a date in early May 2019 until at or around the end of May 2019, the respondent and patient A exchanged text messages of a personal nature.

  4. At around the end of May 2019, the respondent and patient A arranged by text message to meet to have sexual intercourse. At around the end of May 2019, the respondent and patient A meet at the respondent’s home and had sexual intercourse.

  5. On 14 June 2019, patient A attended the clinic after…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Eggerling 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
[2022] QCAT 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the tribunal concerns disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse, Eggerling, by the Health Ombudsman. The sole allegation is that Eggerling failed to maintain professional boundaries with a patient, referred to as patient A, between 1 May 2019 and approximately 28 June 2019. The Health Ombudsman referred these proceedings to the tribunal on 29 September 2020. The primary legal issues the tribunal had to address involved whether Eggerling's conduct constituted professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action, and if so, the appropriate penalty. This included assessing whether Eggerling's actions breached the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia's professional standards and guidelines regarding professional boundaries with patients.

The tribunal found that Eggerling's actions were indeed in breach of the professional standards expected of a registered nurse. By exchanging personal text messages with patient A and engaging in sexual activity with her, Eggerling had clearly violated the professional boundaries necessary to maintain trust and ethical standards in the nurse-patient relationship. The tribunal highlighted that the nature and duration of the inappropriate relationship, along with Eggerling's position of power and trust as a healthcare provider, compounded the seriousness of the misconduct. The tribunal concluded that Eggerling's conduct warranted disciplinary action. The tribunal decided that Eggerling's registration as a nurse should be suspended for a period of six months, starting from the date of the tribunal's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 29 September 2020, the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (the applicant) referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal. The referral contains one allegation; that over a period from 1 May 2019 until approximately 28 June 2019, the respondent, a registered nurse then employed at a medical centre in Morayfield, failed to maintain professional boundaries with a female patient (patient A).The relevant conduct and background On 1 May 2019, patient A attended the practice for medical treatment in relation to an injury to her foot. During this attendance the respondent provided clinical care and treatment to patient A, including administering pain relief and saline. On 9 May 2019, patient A attended the practice, and the respondent applied a cast to patient A’s lower leg. On a date in early May 2019, the respondent gave patient A his phone number and/or patient A gave the respondent her phone number. Commencing on a date in early May 2019 until at or around the end of May 2019, the respondent and patient A exchanged text messages of a personal nature. At around the end of May 2019, the respondent and patient A arranged by text message to meet to have sexual intercourse. At around the end of May 2019, the respondent and patient A meet at the respondent’s home and had sexual intercourse. On 14 June 2019, patient A attended the clinic after having surgery on her foot and the respondent reviewed and cleaned wounds on patient A’s foot. At or around the end of June 2019, the respondent received a text message he believed was from patient A whereupon he started to arrange a further sexual encounter with her. During this exchange, the respondent came to realise the person he was communicating with was not patient A but her partner. The respondent and patient A did not engage in any further sexual encounters. In his response to the referral filed on 10 February 2021, the respondent admitted allegation 1 “inclusive of all particulars”.[1][1]Hearing Brief (HB) page 9 A statement of agreed facts was filed by both parties on 29 April 2021.[2] In relation to the alleged conduct, the statement follows the admitted particulars in the referral.[2] HB pages 21-24 The respondent’s employer made a notification to the Health Ombudsman on 30 July 2019. The Health Ombudsman considered immediate registration action, but after investigation, which included receiving a submission from the respondent, determined not to take such action. The respondent’s employment with the relevant medical centre was terminated on 31 July 2019, but he has worked from around August 2019 as a registered nurse in various capacities until the present time. He is engaged with these proceedings as noted above. The matter is listed to be heard on the papers. The respondent was born on 14 May 1993. He was therefore 26 at the time of the admitted conduct. He completed a Bachelor of Nursing Degree at Queensland university of Technology in 2017 and has held general registration division 1 since 31 January 2018.

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.