Health Ombudsman v Esser

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Esser [2020] QCAT 335

PARTIES:

Health ombudsman

(applicant)

v

Peter Joseph Esser

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR173-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Dr Andrea Quinn

Dr Jane Harte

Mr David Lyons

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct.

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

3.   Each party to the proceeding bears their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PSYCHOLOGISTS – where respondent engaged in a boundary violation with a vulnerable patient – where respondent admitted professional misconduct and was fully cooperative with the Tribunal – whether the respondent should be subject to a reprimand

Health Ombudsman Act 2013

Health Practitioner Regulation National law (Queensland)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34

Health Ombudsman v Hardy [2018] QCAT 416

Medical Board of Australia v Grant [2012] QCAT 285

Medical Board of Australia v RTF [2018] QCAT 323

Psychology Board of Australia v IVX(Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 35

Psychology Board of Australia v Shahimper [2016] QCAT 259

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

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

[1] On 3 May 2019 the applicant Director referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal, pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the Act). The proceedings proceed on the basis of an agreed statement of facts, and the respondent does not dispute that his conduct, as described in that agreed statement of facts, amounts to professional misconduct as defined in section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National law (Queensland)(National Law). Nor does he dispute the sanction sought by the applicant.

[2]           The respondent is a registered psychologist. He was first registered on 16 April 2009. He holds tertiary qualifications in psychology from a number of South African universities.

[3]           He has worked as a psychologist in various locations since coming to Australia in 2009. He has been a clinical psychologist in private practice on the Sunshine Coast since 2012.

[4]           Apart from the notifications associated with the conduct, the subject of these proceedings, he has no other notification history.

[5]           On 15 October 2012 AZ was referred to the respondent on the basis of mixed anxiety and depression with labile moods and past suicidal ideation.

[6]           In total, he treated AZ on 48 occasions between 15 October 2012 and 28 August 2014.

[7]           The disciplinary referral contains three allegations. Allegation 1 relates to professional boundary violations commencing when AZ was overseas for an extended period of months in 2013. During that period there was some contact between the respondent and her.…