Health Ombudsman v Park
Case
•
[2021] QCAT 309
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Health Ombudsman v Park [2021] QCAT 309
[2021] QCAT 309
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Occupational Regulation
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Professional Misconduct
-
Regulatory Compliance
-
Dishonesty
-
Forgery
-
Reprimand
-
Registration Cancellation
-
Disqualification
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Health Ombudsman v Park [2021] QCAT 309
Most Recent Citation
PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and TEH [2025] WASAT 30
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Health Ombudsman v MA
[2025] QCAT 154
Health Ombudsman v JKR
[2022] QCAT 29
PHARMACY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA and TEH
[2025] WASAT 30
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Health Ombudsman v Blay
[2019] QCAT 346
Health Ombudsman v Blay
[2019] QCAT 346