Health Ombudsman v MCE
[2023] QCAT 567
•11 October 2023 (decision) 3 October 2025 (reasons)
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Health Ombudsman v MCE [2023] QCAT 567
PARTIES:
HEALTH OMBUDSMAN (applicant)
v
MCE (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR118-20
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
11 October 2023 (decision)
3 October 2025 (reasons)
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member Reid
Assisted by:
Mr S Brown
Ms K Buist
Mrs K ThomsonORDERS:
IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:
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)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of 3 months from the date of this order.
4. No order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent is a registered osteopath – where it is alleged the respondent had an inappropriate relationship with her patient (i.e., the complainant) – where the complainant funded the fit out of the respondent’s clinic – where the complainant and respondent had a sexual relationship – where the respondent failed to keep appropriate records regarding her consultations with the complainant – where the parties have come to an agreed position regarding characterisation and sanction – whether the Tribunal is satisfied that agreed position falls within the permissible range
Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
The respondent is 39 years of age and has held general registration as an osteopath since July 2010, apart from a short three-month period since then.[1] Since 2016, she has conducted her own private practice as an osteopath in Queensland.[2]
[1]Amended Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts, filed in the Tribunal on 20 October 2022, 1-2 [4]-[6].
[2]Ibid 2 [9].
The complainant, who was her patient is a former member of the Armed Forces but was discharged due to physical injury. He also has a history of mental health issues. He has in the past had psychiatric treatment and resulting antidepressant medication.
The complainant, when he had become the respondent's patient while she was contracted to provide services as an osteopath (i.e., not at her own private practice), advised her of his prior suffering with mental illness in the initial consultation form that he completed on 5 June 2015.[3]
[3]Ibid [14].
The conduct that is the subject of the referral
The first allegation is of an inappropriate relationship between the complainant and the respondent. They had a chance encounter at a restaurant on 18 June 2015, only about two weeks after the initial consultation, and shared a meal at the complainant's invitation.[4] After a second consultation on 20 June 2015, they communicated about matters unrelated to treatment and then arranged to meet at a local nightclub on 25 June 2015.[5] By mid-July they commenced a sexual relationship and on about 28 September 2015, the respondent moved into the complainant’s home.[6] The relationship ended on 29 January 2018;[7] after about 18 months.
[4]Ibid 3 [20(e)].
[5]Ibid 3-4 [20(f)-(h)].
[6]Ibid 4 [20(l)].
[7]Ibid [20(o)].
When the respondent opened a private osteopathic practice, the complainant funded and fitted out the clinic, though at his insistence. The respondent continued to treat the complainant and did not keep consultation records. This failure resulted in the second allegation against the respondent.
Overall, the complainant attended 48 consultations with the respondent from 1 January 2016 to 22 January 2018 however there were only records of two consults in March 2016.[8] The complainant claimed consultation fees for these consultations through the Department of Veterans Affairs and Defence Health.
[8]Ibid [22].
On 9 October 2015, in the course of their relationship, the respondent forwarded the complainant an email she had received from another patient. It included the patient's name, email address and some clinical details about an ear complaint that he had. That unauthorised communication in breach of patient confidentiality constitutes the third allegation.
Discussion and sanction
It is agreed between the parties that it is appropriate to make the following orders:[9]
(a)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.
(b)Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.
(c)Pursuant to s 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is suspended for a period of 3 months from the date of this order.
(d)There be no order as to costs.
[9]Applicant’s Supplementary Submissions, filed in the Tribunal on 26 August 2022, 1-2 [5].
Those orders, if made, are made on the basis of the global finding of professional misconduct. The boundary violation allegation appears to be the most serious and the allegation regarding the communication in breach of confidentiality, the least so.
In entering into their intimate relationship, the respondent appears not to have properly considered the complainant’s significant vulnerability due to his mental health. The failure to maintain almost any records of the consultations is also a very significant breach of the relevant Code of Conduct, especially in circumstances where a government department was paying for such consultations, and where its failure extended over almost a two-year period.
I accept the applicant's submission that the respondent's misconduct was a mid-range example of a boundary violation, in which she breached her obligations to keep appropriate records over an extended period and involved the complainant in funding and fitting out her clinic.[10] In so categorising her boundary violation, I accept her conduct was not predatory, and the relationship was a genuine one in which she loved the complainant. However, the respondent should not have entered into the relationship after only two consultations with the vulnerable patient. It is noted that, as an osteopath, the treatment related to his physical injuries and not to his vulnerable mental health.
[10]Applicant’s Submissions, filed in the Tribunal on 11 May 2022, 7 [40].
The respondent's admissions and cooperation are an indication of her insight although in the material there is no apparent expression of regret or remorse.
I also note the respondent has no prior disciplinary history.
An issue arose between the parties as to the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the respondent, and whether it involved domestic violence and/or coercive control by the complainant.[11] Having regard to the nature of these proceedings, and the resolution of the matter ‘on the papers’, I am unable to resolve that dispute and, quite frankly, think it is of limited relevance to the determination that I need to make other than perhaps indicating that the respondent remained in the relationship with the complainant for longer than she might otherwise have done. It is not relevant to her decision to enter into the relationship or to not keep appropriate records.
[11]Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent, filed in the Tribunal on 21 September 2022, 2 [4], 3-6 [11]-[25].
Having regard to the facts of the case, comparable cases, and the fact that the parties have arrived at an agreed position about appropriate orders I have no hesitation in making the orders sought. They very clearly fall within the appropriate range of sanction.[12] In the circumstances make the orders I earlier indicated.
[12]In this regard see Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376, especially [91]-[93].
0