Health Ombudsman v Kong

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Kong [2020] QCAT 281

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

COLIN KONG

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR266-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DATE OF DECISION:

15 July 2020

DATE OF REASONS:

4 August 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Professor Roger Dooley
Ms Katarina Fritzon

Mrs Fiona Petty

ORDERS:

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

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

3. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the following conditions marked as “A” and attached to this order are imposed on the respondent’s registration; and

4.   Each party bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PSYCHOLOGISTS – where respondent engaged in fraud – where respondent admitted professional misconduct – whether the respondent should have conditions placed on his registration

Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth) s 134, s 135

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 107

Health Practitioner National Law 2009 (Queensland)

Health Ombudsman v Hardy [2018] QCAT 416

Health Ombudsman v Mutasa [2019] QCAT 315
Medical Board of Australia v Dolar [2012] QCAT 271
Medical Board of Australia v Jansz [2011] VCAT 1026
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Armstrong [2018] QCAT 382
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Hopkinson (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 982

Psychology Board of Australia v Nguyen (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2011] VCAT 2437

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. These disciplinary proceedings were referred to the Tribunal by the applicant on 31 July 2019 pursuant to ss 103(1) (a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the Act).

2. At all relevant times, the respondent was registered under the Health Practitioner National Law 2009 (Qld) ( the National Law), as a psychologist with the Psychology Board (the Board); under the National Law as a Chinese Medicine Practitioner with the Chinese Medicine Board of Australia; a health service provider within the meaning of s 8(a) (i) of the Act, being a health practitioner under the National Law; and subject to the registration standards, codes and guidelines developed by the Board as to what constitutes appropriate professional conduct.

3. In hearing and deciding the matter, the Tribunal sits in its original jurisdiction pursuant to ss 9(2)(a) and 10(1)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (the QCAT Act).

4. The primary guiding principle of the Act is that the health and safety of the public is paramount.[1]

   [1]Section 4(1) of the Act    

The conduct

1. The conduct at the heart of these proceedings is not in dispute. The referral contains 2 allegations…