Health Ombudsman v Fletcher

Case [2021] QCAT 4

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Fletcher [2021] QCAT 4
PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v
BELINDA LEANNE FLETCHER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR317-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 January 2021

HEARING DATE:

1 – 2 October 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

Assisted by:

Ms Laura Dyer
Dr Kim Forrester

Mr Paul Murdoch
ORDERS:

1.   The Tribunal decides that such of the conduct of the respondent alleged in the amended referral, as was admitted by the respondent, or was found by the Tribunal, collectively amounted to professional misconduct. 

2.   The respondent is reprimanded. 

3.   The suspension imposed by the Health Ombudsman on 26 October 2016 is set aside.  

4.   The registration of the respondent is cancelled.

5.   The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of twelve months from the date of this decision.

6.   The parties are to bear their own costs of this proceeding. 

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – professional misconduct - registered nurse working in correctional facility – inmate with head injury – failure to monitor adequately – failure to transfer to hospital – sanction – effect of suspension on registration

Health Ombudsman Act 2013, s 10, s 103(1)(a), s 104, s 107, s 109

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) s 56, s 148, s 207.

Chen v Health Care Complaints Commission [2017] NSWCA 186
Health Ombudsman v Arora [2019] QCAT 200
Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243
Health Ombudsman v Kennedy [2019] QCAT 319
Medical Board of Australia v Alkazali [2017] VCAT 286
Medical Board of Australia v Cukier [2017] VCAT 109
Medical Board of Australia v Duck [2017] WASAT 28
Medical Board of Australia v Waldron [2017] QCAT 443
Medical Board of Australia v Wong [2015] QCAT 439
Medical Board of Australia v XY [2018] QCA 95
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Finlay [2018] QCAT 275
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Gibbons [2014] QCAT 412
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Manton [2014] QCAT 400
Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

A R Forbes of Turks Legal

Respondent:

S Robb, instructed by Robert & Kane

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is a referral by the applicant of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 103(1)(a), s 104. In accordance with the Act I sat with assessors Ms L Dyer, Dr K E Forrester and Mr P Murdoch.[1]

    [1]Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 126. For their function, see s 127.

  2. The respondent is and was at relevant times a registered nurse, and hence a registered health practitioner for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) (“the National Law”). The applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct in that, while working as a registered nurse in a correctional facility,…

Continue reading Health Ombudsman v Fletcher

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Health Ombudsman v Fletcher [2021] QCAT 4
Case
[2021] QCAT 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Ombudsman brought proceedings against Ms Fletcher, a registered nurse, alleging professional misconduct in her role at a correctional facility. The Ombudsman claimed that Ms Fletcher failed to adequately monitor an inmate with a head injury and did not transfer him to hospital, which resulted in serious harm to the inmate. The case was heard by the tribunal, which was tasked with determining whether Ms Fletcher's conduct amounted to professional misconduct and what sanctions, if any, should be imposed.

The tribunal had to decide whether Ms Fletcher's failure to adequately monitor the inmate and her decision not to transfer him to hospital constituted professional misconduct. The tribunal also had to consider the appropriate sanction for Ms Fletcher's misconduct, including whether her registration should be cancelled and whether she should be disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner in the future.

The tribunal found that Ms Fletcher's conduct amounted to professional misconduct, and therefore her registration was cancelled. The tribunal set aside the suspension imposed by the Health Ombudsman, but imposed a twelve-month disqualification from applying for registration as a health practitioner. The tribunal also ordered that Ms Fletcher be reprimanded and that the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

The tribunal's final orders were that Ms Fletcher's registration be cancelled, she be disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for twelve months, she be reprimanded, and the parties bear their own costs. The tribunal set aside the previous suspension imposed by the Health Ombudsman.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal decides that such of the conduct of the respondent alleged in the amended referral, as was admitted by the respondent, or was found by the Tribunal, collectively amounted to professional misconduct.

2. The respondent is reprimanded.

3. The suspension imposed by the Health Ombudsman on 26 October 2016 is set aside.

4. The registration of the respondent is cancelled.

5. The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of twelve months from the date of this decision.

6. The parties are to bear their own costs of this proceeding.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.