Health Ombudsman v PBJ

[2023] QCAT 566

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v PBJ [2023] QCAT 566

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

PBJ

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR391-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 November 2023 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Rinaudo AM
Assisted by:
Mr S Brimstone
Ms R Geddes
Ms S Harrop

ORDERS:

1. The respondent has engaged in conduct that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’).

2.     The respondent is reprimanded.

3.     The respondent’s registration is suspended for six months.

4. The immediate registration action taken by the Health Ombudsman on 6 November 2019 is set aside pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).

5.     Conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration, consistent with the attached proposed schedule:

(a)     prohibiting the respondent from having contact with male patients; and

(b)     requiring the respondent to engage in an education that covers professional practitioner and patient boundaries.

6. Part 7, division 11, subdivision 2 of the National Law applies to the conditions.

7. For the purpose of ss 125 and 127 of the National Law, the review period for the conditions is 12 months.

8.     Each party is to bear their own costs.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	S Robb instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. The respondent engaged in a breach of the professional boundary between herself and a patient (‘Patient A’).  The respondent accepts the allegation.  In addition to the matters admitted in the respondent’s original response, the parties agree on the facts provided in the statement of agreed facts handed up to the Tribunal at this hearing.  The statement of agreed facts also jointly proposes findings regarding characterisation of conduct and sanction.

2. Briefly, the respondent was 39 and 40 at the time of the impugned conduct.  The respondent has been registered as a psychologist since April 2014, including her provisional registration.  The respondent was provisionally registered at the time of alleged conduct.  At the time of hearing, the respondent holds general registration as a psychologist.

3. In November 2019, the Health Ombudsman imposed conditions on the respondent’s registration prohibiting her from having contact with male patients.  Those conditions remain in place. 

4. Patient A was aged in his mid to late 40s at the time of the impugned conduct.  Patient A is currently on the disability support pension and has diagnoses of depression and autism.  On 1 September 2016, Patient A met with an employment service who offered him in-house psychology services.  The next day Patient A was referred to a registered charity and not-for-profit psychology practice; the respondent was assigned to him as his (provisionally registered) psychologist. 

Psychology sessions

1. All of the sessions between the respondent and Patient A occurred either over telephone or at a public library.  The respondent had telephone sessions with Patient A on 6 (initial session), 13, 20 and 27 September 2016.  On 5 October 2016, Patient A and the respondent had their first face-to-face meeting at a public library.  The patient had further sessions with the respondent during November and December 2016, approximately once every week.  The respondent’s last session with Patient A occurred on 23 December 2016.

The conduct the subject of the referral

1. The respondent and Patient A had frequent text message conversations of a personal nature from September 2016.  The messages became sexual and the respondent sent nude photographs of herself to the patient.

2. On the evening of 23 December 2016, Patient A stayed the night at the respondent’s house.  The respondent and Patient A commenced a sexual relationship that night.  The personal relationship continued until early 2018.

3. Following the commencement of the sexual relationship, the respondent, in tranches, sent Patient A recordings of interpersonal conflict between her and her husband, and a copy of a protection order; the respondent asked Patient A to retain copies of same.

4. Patient A was concerned about receiving this information and told the respondent he was not prepared to continue to receive the information.  The personal relationship subsequently deteriorated, ceasing completely (i.e., no contact) by early 2018. 

Discussion and sanction

1. The parties agree that, in breaching her professional boundaries, the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’). 

2. The parties jointly submit that in all the circumstances, the following findings and orders are appropriate:

   (a)the respondent has engaged in conduct that constitutes professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5 of the National Law;

   (b)the respondent is reprimanded;

   (c)the respondent’s registration is suspended for six months;

   (d)the immediate registration action taken by the Health Ombudsman on 6 November 2019 is set aside pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld);

   (e)conditions are imposed on the respondent’s registration, consistent with the attached proposed schedule:

   (i)      prohibiting the respondent from having contact with male patients;

   (ii)      requiring the respondent to engage in an education that covers professional practitioner and patient boundaries;

   (f)part 7, division 11, subdivision 2 of the National Law applies to the conditions;

   (g)for the purpose of ss 125 and 127 of the National Law, the review period for the conditions is 12 months; and

   (h)each party is to bear their own costs.

3. The Tribunal is pleased that the respondent has had an opportunity to show that there is certainly some remorse on her behalf, that she is accepting that her behaviour in this matter was significantly below that which would be expected of someone in her position.  The Tribunal expected this not to be the case upon the resumption of the matter this morning.  The sanction of a reprimand and six-month suspension appears to be acceptable on the basis of the respondent’s demonstrated insight and remorse.  Had it not been for the respondent’s admissions and the Tribunal receiving what are effectively joint submissions this morning, the sanction could have been completely different. 

4. Therefore, the Tribunal will make the orders sought by the parties.