Health Ombudsman v Ryan

[2025] QCAT 452

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Ryan [2025] QCAT 452

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

RACHELLE RYAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR300-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Reid
Assisted by:
Ms N Fretwell
Miss J Mantilla
Mr C Morris

ORDERS:

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’), in relation to allegations one and two, 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; and

3.     There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent is a registered nurse – where the respondent pleaded guilty to stealing an ampoule of fentanyl from her employer – where the respondent has filed a report from her psychologist – where the parties are agreed as to facts, characterisation and sanction – whether the agreed sanction is within the permissible range

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Medicine and Poisons (Medicines) Regulation 2021 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: 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 respondent was born in August 1981 and was 41 at the time she engaged in criminal conduct the subject of these proceedings. 

2. She had obtained a Bachelor of Nursing from Queensland University of Technology in 2001 and was registered as a nurse in January 2002. 

3. The respondent was, at the time of the relevant conduct on 20 January 2022, employed at the emergency department of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital.

4. She was, as a result of her conduct, suspended from work, though on full pay between 3 February 2022 and 20 July 2022.  She then resigned from her employment. 

5. On 1 November 2022, the Health Ombudsman took immediate registration action imposing conditions on the respondent’s registration that she must not prescribe, possess, supply, administer, handle, dispense, access or check any monitored medicine set out in Schedule 2, Part 4 of the Medicine and Poisons (Medicines) Regulation 2021 (Qld).  That condition was ultimately removed on 12 February 2022. 

6. The respondent has therefore maintained her registration as a nurse.  She is currently employed as both a casual dental assistant at a dental practice and as a casual nurse at a practice of general practitioners.  She also works casually as a university tutor. 

7. The respondent’s misconduct related to her use of the drug Fentanyl and arose from a colleague reporting her on 29 January 2022.  The colleague had seen the respondent place an ampoule of Fentanyl in her pocket contrary to proper drug protocols.

8. When the respondent was approached by her manager about the issue it seems that she secretly discarded the ampoule into a sharps container at the hospital. 

9. When interviewed, she initially denied taking any Fentanyl, although a search of the sharps container located the discarded ampoule. 

10. Subsequently, at the time of her resignation in July 2022, the respondent admitted placing the ampoule containing 0.5ml of Fentanyl into her pocket, and later disposing of it into the sharps container, she also acknowledged that her conduct was not in accordance with proper procedures.

11. On 5 April 2023, she pleaded guilty to stealing the ampoule.  She was fined $700.  No conviction was recorded. 

12. The parties are in agreement that the circumstances of her offending and her conduct since, to which I will shortly refer, justify orders in the following terms:

    (a)Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), in relation to allegations one and two, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

    (b)Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded; and

    (c)There be no order as to costs.

13. Of importance is the report of a psychologist, Ryan Dixon of 13 February 2023, that the respondent exhibited symptoms of burnout syndrome.  She underwent significant treatment with Mr Ryan.  He says she has shown good insight and he describes her commendable dedication to her psychological wellbeing and professional responsibilities.  She has also undertaken an ethical decision-making course and has maintained regular employment.

14. The respondent has no disciplinary history. 

15. It is reasonable, in the circumstances, to assess her as presenting a low ongoing risk.

16. In my view, there is no purpose served in imposing a period of suspension.  The reprimand and earlier imposition of conditions and loss of employment at Sunshine Coast University Hospital are significant penalties. 

17. For the reasons given, I will make the orders sought.