Health Ombudsman v Sharman - [2020] QCAT 224

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Sharman [2020] QCAT 224

PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

SUSAN SHARMAN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR125-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 July 2020

HEARING DATE:

22 June 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

Assisted by:

Ms L Dyer
Mr S Lewis
Mrs F K Petty

ORDERS:
1.   The Tribunal decides that the conduct of the respondent, in respect of Allegation 1, amounted to unprofessional conduct.

2.   The Tribunal decides that the conduct of the respondent, in respect of Allegations 2 and 3, amounted to professional misconduct.

3.   The Tribunal reprimands the respondent.

4.   The registration of the respondent is cancelled.

5.   The parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent is a registered nurse – where the respondent breached conditions on her registration – where the respondent provided forged documents to the Board – whether professional misconduct – sanction

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 103(1)(a), s 104, s 107

Health Care Complaints Commission v Caken [2018] NSWCATOD 5
Health Care Complaints Commission v Townsend [2014] NSWCATOD 65
Health Ombudsman v Field [2019] QCAT 243
Health Ombudsman v Hardy [2018] QCAT 416
Medical Board of Australia v Kioussis [2019] VCAT 1961
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Fisher [2018] VCAT 1340
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v INZ [2018] VCAT 99
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Morley [2014] SAHPT 17
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Arulogun [2013] QCAT 685
Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

D Dupree of the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a reference by the applicant of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 103(1)(a), s 104. In accordance with the Act, I am sitting with assessors Ms L Dyer, Mr S Lewis and Mrs F K Petty.[1]
[1]Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 126; see s 127 for their function.
The respondent is a registered health practitioner for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld), being a registered nurse. The applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct, in that, while registered, she failed to comply with conditions on her registration, and submitted forged statutory declarations to the Board, and in unprofessional conduct, in that she failed to notify the Nursing and Midwifery Board of relevant events, namely that she was charged with and convicted of a number of offences.
The parties have provided the Tribunal with an agreed statement of facts, and an agreed bundle of documents. The respondent, who has not been legally represented in this proceeding, provided a response to the referral in which she admitted the allegations, and that the conduct amounted to professional misconduct. She has written to the Tribunal, and provided the Tribunal…

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 Sharman 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: [2020] QCAT 224
Decision Date: 21 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Health Ombudsman v Sharman, the respondent, a registered nurse, was subject to disciplinary proceedings following allegations of unprofessional conduct. The Health Ombudsman brought the matter before the Tribunal, which was tasked with determining whether the respondent's actions constituted professional misconduct, and if so, what sanctions should be imposed. The Tribunal was required to consider the respondent's provision of forged documents to the Board, and whether this conduct warranted disciplinary action.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the respondent's actions constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, and had to determine the appropriate level of sanction for the respondent's conduct. In particular, the Tribunal needed to assess whether the respondent's actions amounted to unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct, and if the latter, what the appropriate sanction would be.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, in respect of the first allegation, amounted to unprofessional conduct. However, in respect of the second and third allegations, the Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The Tribunal took into account the seriousness of the respondent's actions, including the provision of forged documents, and the potential impact on public confidence in the nursing profession. The Tribunal concluded that the appropriate sanction was a reprimand and the cancellation of the respondent's registration. The Tribunal also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

In summary, the Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct and imposed a reprimand and cancellation of registration as the appropriate sanctions. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal decides that the conduct of the respondent, in respect of Allegation 1, amounted to unprofessional conduct.

2. The Tribunal decides that the conduct of the respondent, in respect of Allegations 2 and 3, amounted to professional misconduct.

3. The Tribunal reprimands the respondent.

4. The registration of the respondent is cancelled.

5. The parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.