Health Ombudsman v Park - [2021] QCAT 309

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Park [2021] QCAT 309

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

JOOYOUN PARK

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR115-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 August 2021 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

20 August 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Mr Kenneth Murphy
Dr Gail Neilson

Miss Hailie Uren

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(v) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent’s registration was improperly obtained because she gave the Pharmacy Board of Australia a document that was false or misleading in a material particular.

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.

4. Pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013 (Qld), the respondent’s registration is cancelled.

5. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013 (Qld), the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of six months.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEDINGS – MISCONDUCT IN PROFESSIONAL RESPECT – where the respondent was an intern pharmacist – where the respondent gained general registration as a pharmacist by falsely representing the number of supervised hours of practice she had completed – where the respondent forged her preceptor’s signature – where the parties are agreed as to characterisation of conduct and sanction – whether the conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – what sanction should be imposed

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 4, s 103, s 104, s 107

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 5

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 100

Health Ombudsman v Blay [2019] QCAT 346

Medical Board of Australia v Anwar [2019] VCAT 1803
Medical Board of Australia v Anwar (No 2) [2020] VCAT 462
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Walker [2016] SAHPT 2

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Williams [2013] SAHPT 1

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Self-represented.

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

Introduction

This is a referral of a health service complaint against Jooyoun Park (respondent), pursuant to section 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act) by the director of proceedings on behalf of the Office of the Health Ombudsman (applicant).
The applicant alleges that the respondent has behaved in way that constitutes professional misconduct and seeks orders by way of sanction. The respondent does not contend otherwise and accepts, generally, the sanctions proposed by the applicant in its submission. The respondent has had the benefit of legal advice throughout the proceedings.

Background

The respondent is 27…

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 Park 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: [2021] QCAT 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) heard a referral by the Health Ombudsman (applicant) against Jooyoun Park (respondent), a former intern pharmacist who engaged in misconduct that led to a complaint against her. The Tribunal was required to decide whether the respondent’s conduct constituted professional misconduct under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), and if so, what sanctions should be imposed. The Tribunal found that the respondent’s conduct, which involved forging a signature and submitting a false statutory declaration to obtain registration as a pharmacist, amounted to professional misconduct. The Tribunal decided that the respondent’s registration was improperly obtained and imposed sanctions, including a reprimand, cancellation of her registration, and a six-month disqualification from applying for registration.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent’s conduct was a significant departure from appropriate professional standards and constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal emphasised that the paramount principle in making orders by way of sanction was the health and safety of the public. The Tribunal considered the respondent’s remorse, insight, and additional academic qualifications but found that the imposition of sanctions was necessary to protect the public. The Tribunal decided to reprimand the respondent, cancel her registration, and disqualify her from applying for registration for six months. The respondent had no criminal or disciplinary history prior to this conduct, which was motivated by a desire to escape a stressful working environment and personal issues. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent’s conduct warranted the imposition of sanctions to deter both personal and general deterrence.

Orders