Health Ombudsman v Oliver

[2025] QCAT 362

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Oliver [2025] QCAT 362

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

STEPHANIE KATHLEEN SUSAN OLIVER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR047-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

28-30 July 2025
Applicant’s written submissions filed on 2 September 2025
Respondent’s written submissions filed on 23 September 2025
Applicant’s written submissions in reply filed on 29 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Robertson
Assisted by:
Ms C Ashcroft
Ms F Banwell
Dr J Toohill

ORDERS:

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1.     The non-publication order made by the Tribunal on 23 July 2025 relating to the identification of the respondent is set aside.

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)(e) of the HO Act, the respondent’s registration is cancelled.

4.     Pursuant to s 107(3) of the HO Act, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a nurse or midwife for a period of two (2) years from the date of this order.

5.     There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent was a registered midwife – where the respondent was involved as the secondary midwife in a planned home birth – whether the respondent and/or her colleague failed to respond to many concerning fetal heart rate auscultations late in the second stage of labour – where the baby was born floppy and unresponsive – where the baby never recovered and died three days later of severe hypoxic encephalopathy (brain damage due to lack of oxygen) – whether the respondent failed to provide intrapartum care to mother and baby at the standard expected of an experienced midwife – where the father of the baby videoed the labour and birth – where the respondent and her colleague altered the clinical records after the baby had died – whether in so doing the respondent acted dishonestly – where the respondent denies any misconduct – where the respondent gave evidence at a Coronial Inquest – where it is alleged that in providing the altered records to the Coroner the respondent was intending to mislead her – where each party relied on expert evidence – whether the applicant Director has proved that the respondent’s conduct amounts to professional misconduct – what is the appropriate sanction – where the respondent was a very experienced midwife at the time of the home birth – whether the respondent has demonstrated  insight and/or remorse for her part in the home birth – where the respondent’s colleague admitted her misconduct and surrendered her registration in the wake of damming findings by the Coroner – where disciplinary proceedings involving her had been finalised recently in the Tribunal on the…