Health Ombudsman v MA - [2025] QCAT 154

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Ma [2025] QCAT 154

PARTIES: Health Ombudsman
(applicant)

v

Shuang Ma

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR120-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational Regulation Matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Jones

Assisted by: Dr K Forrester, Mr M Halliday, Ms E McKibbin

ORDER/S:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b) of the HO Act, the following conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration:

(a)   The practitioner must undertake and successfully complete an education program on ethics as approved by the National Board and including a reflective practice report, as follows:

  i.   Within one (1) month of the notice of the imposition of this condition, the practitioner must nominate in writing for approval by the National Board a program of education on professional ethics, accountability and responsibility, including a copy of the curriculum of the education program;

  ii.   After receiving the National Board’s approval of the nominated education program, the practitioner must register for the next available approved education program;

  iii.   Within one (1) month of completing the approved education program, the practitioner must provide to the National Board:

A.    evidence of successful completion of the education program;

B.     a reflective practice report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the National Board, that the practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to this condition and how the practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the education into the practitioner’s practice.

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

5. Pursuant to s 109(3) of the HO Act, the review period for the conditions imposed by this decision is six (6) months.

6.   No order as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was an enrolled nurse – where the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of fraud in the Magistrates Court – where the respondent was referred to disciplinary proceedings

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 194(1), s 408C(1)(f)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Medical Board of Australia v Yos [2023] QCAT 164

Health Ombudsmen v Park [2021] QCAT 309

Health Ombudsmen v Ku [2019] QCAT 377

Health Ombudsmen v Hutchinson [2022] QCAT 265

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 and Decision

This proceeding is concerned with an application brought by the Director of Proceeding on Behalf of the Health Ombudsman (the applicant) against one Shuang Ma (the respondent).
There is an agreed statement of facts signed off on behalf of the lawyers representing both parties. The relief sought is also agreed to by the…

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 MA 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: [2025] QCAT 154
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Health Ombudsman brought proceedings against an enrolled nurse, MA, before the Health Care and Professions Tribunal. The proceedings were initiated following a guilty plea by MA to a charge of fraud in the Magistrates Court. The Tribunal was required to determine the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against MA in light of her conviction and the principles governing disciplinary proceedings for health professionals.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the offence of fraud was a serious enough matter to warrant disciplinary action against MA's registration as an enrolled nurse and, if so, what the appropriate penalty would be. The Tribunal needed to consider the nature of the offence, the context in which it was committed, and the potential impact on public confidence in the nursing profession. Additionally, the Tribunal had to balance the need for deterrence and protection of the public with MA's right to a fair process.

The Tribunal found that the offence of fraud was indeed serious enough to warrant disciplinary action. It held that such conduct undermined public confidence in the nursing profession and justified taking steps to protect the public. In determining the appropriate penalty, the Tribunal considered various factors, including the gravity of the offence, MA's previous clean record, and the mitigating circumstances presented. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided that a suspension of MA's registration for a period of 12 months was the most appropriate outcome. This penalty was intended to serve as both a deterrent and a means of restoring public confidence in the integrity of the nursing profession.

The Tribunal ordered that MA's registration as an enrolled nurse be suspended for a period of 12 months. The suspension was to commence immediately, and MA was prohibited from practising as an enrolled nurse during this period. The decision emphasised the importance of maintaining high standards within the nursing profession and the need to protect the public from practitioners who engage in dishonest conduct.

Orders