Health Ombudsman v Lemon

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Lemon [2020] QCAT 266

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

GARRY ARTHUR LEMON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR290-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 July 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC,

Assisted by:

Ms M Barnett,
Ms L Dyer

Professor M Lupton. 

ORDERS:

1.   The Tribunal decides that the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. 

2.   The Tribunal reprimands the respondent.

3.   The parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – Professional misconduct – convictions of fraud offences – mitigating circumstances - sanction

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 104, s 107

Health Ombudsman v Chaffey [2020] QCAT 54
Medical Board of Australia v de Silva [2016] QCAT 63
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Hawthorne [2018] VCAT 890
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Johnson [2020] VCAT 205

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Hall Payne Lawyers
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. This is a reference by the applicant of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, s 103(1)(a) and s 104. In accordance with that Act, I am sitting with assessors Ms Barnett, Ms Dyer and Professor Lupton.[1] The respondent is a registered health practitioner for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld), being a registered nurse. The applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct, in that he has been convicted of four counts of fraud.

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

2. The parties have provided the Tribunal with an agreed statement of facts. The respondent, who has been legally represented in these proceedings, admits the grounds alleged, and that the conduct in question amounts to professional misconduct. The parties have provided joint written submissions to the Tribunal,[2] and the hearing proceeded on the papers, in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 32.

   [2]The respondent has also filed an affidavit, signed on 25 March 2020.

Facts

1. The Tribunal accepts the facts set out in the agreed statement of facts.  They, and some other information before the Tribunal, may be summarised as follows: The respondent was born in 1954 and is now 66.  He was first registered as a registered nurse in 1978.  At the relevant time, the respondent was working as a registered nurse at a regional hospital in Queensland. On 6 February 2017 the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court to four charges of fraud. On 10 February 2017 he was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, suspended forthwith for an operational period of two years. 

2. The…