Health Ombudsman v Hills - [2020] QCAT 516

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Hills [2020] QCAT 516

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

BRADLEY THOMAS HILLS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR259-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2020 (Ex Tempore)

HEARING DATE:

9 December 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Mr Ross Ashcroft
Associate Professor Leonie Short

Mr John Souza

ORDERS:

1.       The respondent has engaged in professional misconduct.

2.       The respondent is reprimanded.

3.       Each party is to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – DENTISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where the respondent surrendered his registration – where the respondent was convicted of various drug offences – where respondent showed insight and actively addressed self-impairment issues – whether respondent is fit to practice despite substance use disorder and social anxiety disorder

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 79.
Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) ss 103(1)(a), 104.
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ss 5, 130
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C McGee, solicitor with Gilshenan and Luton lawyers, instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

No appearance

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

On 28 September 2018, the applicant Director referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal, pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (the Act). Today’s proceedings are on the basis of an amended referral filed on 20 February 2019, following a compulsory conference and directions by a Senior Member. The respondent participated in the compulsory conference but since then has not engaged further in these proceedings, has not appeared today, has not responded to attempted contact at known email addresses and telephone numbers from the solicitors for the applicant, nor has he responded to attempted contact from the Tribunal’s administrative officers.
The referral contains three separate allegations. The first is that he engaged in professional misconduct as defined by section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law), as a consequence of his conviction in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court on 7 October 2016 on his pleas of guilty to four breaches of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). Allegation 2 is that the respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct as defined by section 5 of the National Law in that he failed to give notice pursuant to section 130 of the National Law to the Dental Board of Australia (the Board) when he was charged and when he was convicted. Allegation 3 alleges that the respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by providing false information to the Board in his application for renewal of his registration.

Background

The respondent was born on 15 April 1958, so he was 58…

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 Hills 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: [2020] QCAT 516
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with deciding a disciplinary matter concerning a former registered dental practitioner, Bradley Thomas Hills, who was referred to the Tribunal by the Health Ombudsman. The respondent had surrendered his registration in 2019 and was subject to allegations of professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct stemming from his 2016 convictions for drug-related offences. The respondent did not appear for the hearing, nor did he respond to attempts to contact him.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct, as defined by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the respondent's convictions for drug offences constituted professional misconduct and if his failure to notify the Dental Board of Australia of his charges and convictions constituted unprofessional conduct. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether the respondent provided false information to the Board in his application for registration renewal.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's drug-related convictions did indeed constitute professional misconduct, as defined by the National Law. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's failure to notify the Board of his charges and convictions, as well as providing false information in his registration renewal application, amounted to unprofessional conduct. The Tribunal relied on the medical report from Dr Nigel Prior, a consulting psychiatrist, who concluded that despite the respondent's substance use disorder and social anxiety disorder, he was fit to practice his profession subject to certain conditions. Given the respondent's surrender of his registration and his efforts to address his self-impairment issues, the Tribunal decided on a reprimand rather than more severe sanctions.

In summary, the Tribunal issued the following orders: (1) the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct; (2) the respondent is reprimanded; and (3) each party is to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Orders