Health Ombudsman v Self - [2022] QCAT 132

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Self [2022] QCAT 132

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

CHARLIE LEIGH SELF

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR084-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

16 March 2022 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Ms Laura Dyer
Mr Stephen Lewis

Ms Margaret Ridley

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration for twelve months.

4. Each party to the proceeding is to bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – ENROLLED NURSE – where respondent stole prescription pads from her medical practitioner employer – where she then forged prescriptions and obtained controlled drugs and/or attempted to obtain such drugs for her own use – where respondent no longer registered – where respondent has not engaged in these proceedings – where substituted service order made by the Tribunal – whether conduct constitutes professional misconduct – what sanction should be imposed

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 107

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law) s 5

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Ex parte Tziniolos; Re. Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448

Health Ombudsman v Antley [2016] QCAT 472

Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243

Health Ombudsman v Mullins [2019] QCAT 339

Health Ombudsman v Shemer [2019] QCAT 53

Health Ombudsman v Wrede [2019] QCAT 356

McBride v Walton [1994] NSWCA 1999

Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sanger (review and Regulation) (Corrected) [2020] VCAT 201

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

M Price, Legal Officer at the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

No Appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 29 March 2021, the applicant referred a health service complaint to the Tribunal. The applicant alleges that the respondent has behaved in a manner that constitutes professional misconduct, alternatively unprofessional conduct.
The referral relates to the respondent’s conviction, on her own pleas of guilty, on 18 November 2020 in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court to six criminal charges, three of stealing, two of fraud and one of attempted fraud.
The offending occurred during the period 1 May 2019 and 24 April 2020 and is summarised appropriately in Mr Price’s (Counsel for the applicant) submission in the following way:
(a)between 1 May 2019 and 24 April 2020, and while employed as a nurse at the Wynnum Medical Centre at Tingalpa, the respondent stole an unknown number of blank prescriptions belonging to a doctor at the surgery. Then, on at least 14 different occasions, in order to dishonestly obtain prescription medication, she attended at 14 different pharmacies and…

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 Self 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: [2022] QCAT 132
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Health Ombudsman v Self was before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to determine whether the respondent, Charlie Leigh Self, had engaged in professional misconduct. Self, a former enrolled nurse, had been convicted of multiple criminal charges of stealing and fraud related to the theft of prescription pads from her employers and forging prescriptions to obtain controlled drugs. The Health Ombudsman brought the referral to QCAT, alleging that Self's conduct constituted professional misconduct under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld). The primary issue for the Tribunal was to determine whether Self's actions met the criteria for professional misconduct and, if so, what appropriate sanctions should be imposed.

The Tribunal found that Self's conduct met the definition of professional misconduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland). Her actions were substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner, contravened essential provisions of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct, and demonstrated that she was not a fit and proper person to hold registration. Self's protracted and deliberate dishonesty, involving multiple episodes over a significant period, breached the trust of her employers and undermined public confidence in the nursing profession.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal considered several factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct, the need for deterrence, and the protection of public health and safety. Given Self's failure to engage in the proceedings and the lack of evidence of remorse or rehabilitation, the Tribunal concluded that a disqualification from applying for registration for 12 months was appropriate. Additionally, a reprimand was ordered to denounce the conduct publicly. The Tribunal also ruled that each party should bear its own costs for the proceeding.

In summary, the Tribunal found that Self's actions constituted professional misconduct and imposed a 12-month disqualification from applying for registration along with a reprimand. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining professional standards and public confidence in the healthcare system.

Orders