Health Ombudsman v Jonsson

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION: Health Ombudsman v Jonsson [2023] QCAT 142
PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

CLARA ISABELLA JOHANNA JONSSON

(respondent)

APPLICATIONNO/S: OCR116-20
MATTERTYPE: Occupational regulation matters
DELIVEREDON: 8 May 2023
DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane
HEARINGDATE: 9 September 2021
DECISIONOF:

Judge Allen KC, Deputy President

Assisted by: Dr F Walden Dr D Bodnar Ms S Harrop

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), as regards allegations 1 and 2, the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), as regards allegation 3, the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.

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

4. Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of 3 months, commencing one month after the date of the delivery of this decision.

5. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), a condition is

imposed    on    the    respondent’s    registration requiring the respondent, on her return to

practice, to submit to audits of her practice in the following terms:

i.     The respondent must submit to an audit of their practice (‘the audit’), including any supporting records, within 2 months of returning to practice and thereafter on a quarterly basis for a period of 2 years, by permitting an auditor (‘the auditor’) approved by the Medical Board of Australia (‘the Board’) to attend any and all places of practice (public and private) for the purpose of the audit and by permitting the auditor to provide a report in relation to the findings of the audit. The audit and the audit report are to focus on treatment of family members.

ii.   Within one month of returning to practice, the respondent must provide to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority (APHRA):

a.   nomination, on the approved form, of an auditor(s) to be approved by the Board;

b.   acknowledgement, on the approved form, that APHRA will seek reports from the approved auditor at the conclusion of each audit; and

c.    acknowledgement, on the approved form, from the nominated auditor.

iii.     Within 7 days of the notice of the approval of the nominated auditor, the respondent is to provide a written audit plan, from the approved auditor, outlining the form the audit(s) will take and how the areas of concern for the Board will be address. The audit(s) will take the form determined by the auditor.

iv.     In the event an approved auditor is no longer willing or able to provide the audit required, the respondent must notify APHRA within 14 days of becoming aware of this and provide a new nomination of a proposed auditor(s) to the Board in the same terms as the previous nomination of auditor(s).

v.   All costs associated with compliance with this condition are to be borne by…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Jonsson 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
[2023] QCAT 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the tribunal was a disciplinary proceeding against a registered medical practitioner, Dr. Jonsson, brought by the Health Ombudsman. The allegations against Dr. Jonsson centred around her professional and personal conduct, including the commencement of a relationship with a patient, failure to maintain appropriate boundaries, and breaches of confidentiality. The Health Ombudsman sought a range of penalties, including suspension or cancellation of Dr. Jonsson's registration. The central legal issues that the tribunal had to determine were whether the actions of Dr. Jonsson amounted to professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

The tribunal found that Dr. Jonsson's actions in commencing a relationship with a patient constituted both professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct. The tribunal considered that Dr. Jonsson had breached the fundamental ethical principles expected of a medical practitioner by entering into an intimate relationship with a patient, and by failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The tribunal also found that Dr. Jonsson's actions had undermined the trust and confidence that the public places in the medical profession. The tribunal further found that the breach of confidentiality was also an element of unprofessional conduct.

The tribunal imposed a reprimand on Dr. Jonsson and suspended her registration for a period of three months, commencing one month after the date of the decision. The tribunal considered that these penalties were appropriate given the seriousness of Dr. Jonsson's breaches of professional and ethical standards. The tribunal also imposed a condition on Dr. Jonsson's registration requiring her to undertake a course of professional development in ethics and boundaries, and to provide evidence of completion of the course before her registration is reinstated.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), as regards allegations 1 and 2, the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), as regards allegation 3, the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.

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

4. Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of 3 months, commencing one month after the date of the delivery of this decision.

5. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), a condition is

imposed on the respondent’s registration requiring the respondent, on her return to

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.