Health Ombudsman v Hammond - [2024] QCAT 429

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Hammond [2024] QCAT 429

PARTIES:

THE DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

GREGORY JOHN HAMMOND

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR 159 of 2023

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Dr D Rimmer, Medical Practitioner Panel Assessor
Dr D Bodnar, Medical Practitioner Panel Assessor
Mr M Halliday, Public Panel Assessor

ORDERS:

1.     The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2.     The respondent is reprimanded.

3.     Conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to this decision.

4. Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) applies to the conditions.

5. The review period for the purpose of applying Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) is six (6) months.

6.     The respondent’s registration is suspended from 1 December 2024 until 1 March 2025, being a period of three (3) months.

7.     The immediate registration action imposed on the respondent’s registration by the Health Ombudsman on 15 June 2022 is set aside.

8.     No order as to costs.

9.     The interim non-publication order made 4 July 2024 remains in force as a final order.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES — HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS — MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS — DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS — PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT — where the respondent was a registered medical practitioner holding general and specialist registration as a general practitioner — where the respondent engaged in a personal and sexual relationship with a former patient — where the personal and sexual relationship occurred after the cessation of the treating relationship — where the parties are agreed as to characterisation — whether the conduct is acceptably characterised as professional misconduct

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES — HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS — MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS — DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS — SANCTION — where the parties agree as to sanction — whether the sanction sought is within the acceptable range

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169; 79 SASR 545
Health Ombudsman v Vale [2020] QCAT 363
Medical Board of Australia v Griffiths (Review and Regulation) [2017] VCAT 822
Medical Board of Australia v Haifi (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 1788
Medical Board of Australia v Holten (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 837
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
Medical Board of Australia v Rathnayake (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 1012

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

Introduction

The applicant Director referred this disciplinary proceeding to the Tribunal on 28 June 2023. An amended referral was filed on 4 October 2023 and the respondent filed his response…

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 Hammond 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: [2024] QCAT 429
Decision Date: 29 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Ombudsman initiated disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Hammond, a registered medical practitioner, following allegations of professional misconduct. The crux of the matter was the personal and sexual relationship Dr. Hammond had with a former patient, which commenced after the cessation of the professional relationship. Both parties agreed on the characterisation of the misconduct and the appropriate sanction. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's conduct could be acceptably characterised as professional misconduct and whether the proposed sanction fell within an acceptable range.

The court examined the relationship between Dr. Hammond and his former patient, emphasising the power imbalance inherent in the doctor-patient dynamic. It was noted that the relationship began after the cessation of the professional treatment, yet the nature of the prior relationship inevitably influenced the ethical boundaries that should have been maintained. The court held that the conduct was indeed professional misconduct, as it breached the trust and ethical standards expected of medical professionals. Given the agreement on the sanction, the court considered whether it was appropriate and proportionate to the misconduct. The court found that the proposed sanction, which included a reprimand, conditions on the respondent's registration, and a suspension of his registration, was within the acceptable range and appropriate given the circumstances.

In its decision, the court ruled that Dr. Hammond's actions constituted professional misconduct. It imposed a reprimand, placed conditions on his registration, and suspended his registration for a period of three months. The court also set aside a previous registration action and maintained an interim non-publication order as a final order. No costs were ordered. The court's ruling underscores the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and the serious consequences that can follow when these are breached.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. The respondent is reprimanded.

3. Conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration in the form of Annexure A to this decision.

4. Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) applies to the conditions.

5. The review period for the purpose of applying Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) is six (6) months.

6. The respondent’s registration is suspended from 1 December 2024 until 1 March 2025, being a period of three (3) months.

7. The immediate registration action imposed on the respondent’s registration by the Health Ombudsman on 15 June 2022 is set aside.

8. No order as to costs.

9. The interim non-publication order made 4 July 2024 remains in force as a final order.

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.