Health Ombudsman v Obet

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Obet [2020] QCAT 338

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

HAMZA OBET

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR085-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

16 September 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Robertson

Assisted by:

Ms Harriet Barker
Mr Brent Dixon

Ms Jennifer Felton

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

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

3.   Each party bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was a Registered Nurse – where the referral alleges professional misconduct  – where the alleged professional misconduct involved the respondent contacting a patient of via Facebook Messenger  – where the respondent committed boundary violations including sexual misconduct – whether such conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – what sanction should be imposed

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 107

Health Ombudsman v Wood [2019] QCAT 35
Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Adey [2017] SAHPT 3
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Tainton [2014] QCAT 161
Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria [1994] VCAT 7
Queensland Nursing Council v Dodd [2010] QDC 220

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Director of Proceedings on behalf 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. These disciplinary proceedings were referred to the Tribunal by the applicant on 25 March 2019, pursuant to sections 103 and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the Act). The referral contains two allegations, one of professional misconduct in that as a registered nurse he engaged in boundary violations with a patient in 2017; and the second of unprofessional conduct based on the same allegations of fact. I assume that the allegations in fact compromise one only and allegation two is expressed as an alternative to allegation 1.

2. In his response to the referral,[1] the respondent admits the conduct alleged in allegation 1 and he accepts that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct.

   [1]Tab 5 Hearing Brief (HB)

3. It is common ground that at all relevant times, the respondent was registered as a registered nurse with the Nursing and Midwifery Board (the Board); a health service provider within the meaning of section 8 of the Act; subject to registration standards and codes and guidelines approved by the Board as to what constitutes appropriate professional conduct by a registered nurse; and employed as a registered nurse at Logan Hospital from 3 February 2014 to 20 September 2017.

The Relevant Conduct

1. The parties have agreed to a statement of agreed facts. The following is a summary of those agreed facts. Patient X[2] attended the Logan Hospital Emergency Department…