Health Ombudsman v Pearson

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Pearson [2021] QCAT 42

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

GREGORY NICHOLAS PEARSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR033-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2021 (Ex Tempore)

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Dr Jennifer Cavanagh
Ms Jennifer Felton

Dr Arankanathan Thillainathan

ORDERS:

1.       The Tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2.       The respondent is reprimanded.

3.       The respondent is required to pay a fine of $15,000 to the applicant within a period of six months.

4.       Each party is to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIOANL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where treatment in psychiatry involves treating vulnerable patients – where respondent admits the alleged conduct – where respondent failed to maintain professional boundaries – where respondent failed to address transference issues – what sanction should be imposed

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 8(a)(i).
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32.

Health Ombudsman v Hardy [2018] QCAT 416.

Health Ombudsman v Cash [2020] QCAT 49.
Health Ombudsman v Fletcher [2020] QCAT 478.
Medical Board of Australia v Holding [2014] QCAT 632.

Health Ombudsman v Upadhyay [2020] QCAT 163.
Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria [1994] VicSC 7.
Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2020] QCAT 227.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

D Dupree, solicitor from the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

J le Goullon, solicitor from Avant Law

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. The applicant referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal on 31 January 2020. The applicant’s position has always been that the admitted conduct by the respondent should be characterised by the Tribunal as “professional misconduct”, that is:

   Unprofessional conduct…that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience: …[1]

   [1]Section 5 National Law, definition (a).

2. When the respondent, through his experienced lawyers, filed his response to the referral on 14 April 2020, he then maintained that the admitted conduct amounted to the lesser “unprofessional conduct”; and when the applicant filed its submissions 13 October 2020, it responded to what was then the respondent’s position.

3. However, by the time the respondent’s submissions to the Tribunal were filed 23 October 2020 under the hand of Mr Diehm QC,[2] the respondent was (appropriately) accepting that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct and that the sanctions sought by the applicant were an appropriate disciplinary response.

   [2]Tab 2 Hearing Brief (HB).

Background:

1. At all relevant times the respondent was:

   (a)registered as a medical practitioner with the Medical Board of Australia (the Board) holding general and specialist (psychiatry) registration;

   (b)a health…