Health Ombudsman v Sinton - [2022] QCAT 270

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Sinton [2022] QCAT 270

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OD THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

LAURA ANGELA SINTON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR338-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 July 2022 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

13 July 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Mr S Lewis

Ms A Blair

Ms N Alexander

ORDERS:

1. The Tribunal finds that the conduct of the respondent in allegation 1 of the referral, constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).

2. The Tribunal finds that the conduct of the respondent in allegation 2 constitutes unprofessional conduct pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).

3. It is ordered that pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) the respondent is reprimanded.

4. No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH PROFESSION – NURSES -where over a number of years the respondent used her position of trust in the Dental Care unit of her employer to facilitate the provision of free dental care to members of her family and a friend – where she was aware that none were entitled to such free care – where she perceived there was a culture within the organisation that did not discourage such a practice – where she was charged with and convicted of fraud and sentenced to a term of imprisonment and released immediately – where she did not notify the Board as required of the fact of her being charged or convicted – where she repaid all the cost of the services provided to others – where she resigned from a number of positions as a result – where many good character references were tendered on her behalf before the court including one from her present employer – where she remains registered – where applicant seeks a reprimand – where respondent co-operated fully with the criminal justice system and the regulator and in these proceedings

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 107

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Craig v Medical Board of South Australia on [2001] SASC 196

Health Ombudsman v Chaffey [2020] QCAT 54

Health Ombudsman v Lemon [2020] QCAT 266

Health Ombudsman v Niem Quoc Tang [2020] QCAT 165

Medical Board Australia v Jansz [2011] VACT 1026

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Faulkner [2018] QCA 97

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

N Townsend, legal officer at the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

On the 30th of October 2020, the applicant Director filed a disciplinary referral in the Tribunal seeking disciplinary findings against the respondent arising out of her conviction for fraud in the Innisfail Magistrates Court on the 14th of July 2020, and her failure to comply with section 130(1) of the National Law by not advising the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (the Board) within the prescribed time that she was…

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 Sinton 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 270
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Health Ombudsman v Sinton involved Ms Laura Angela Sinton, a registered nurse who was employed at various health facilities in Queensland. The Health Ombudsman brought proceedings against Ms Sinton for misconduct in her role as an administrative officer at the Tully Hospital Oral Health Unit. Specifically, between March 2006 and March 2018, Ms Sinton facilitated the receipt of free dental treatment for members of her family and another person by entering false health care card details. This conduct resulted in the provision of free dental health care valued at $13,898.62, with $12,420.47 of that amount benefitting Ms Sinton’s family. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Ms Sinton's actions constituted misconduct under the National Law and whether the proposed sanctions by the Health Ombudsman were moderate and fair. Misconduct, as defined in the National Law, includes engaging in conduct that brings the profession into disrepute or undermines public confidence in the profession. The court had to consider whether Ms Sinton's actions, which involved entering false details and facilitating the misuse of public funds, constituted such misconduct. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the proposed sanctions, which included a fine and conditions on her registration, were appropriate given the circumstances.

In assessing the nature of Ms Sinton's conduct, the tribunal found that her actions were deliberate and constituted serious breaches of professional and ethical standards. By entering false details and facilitating the misuse of public funds, Ms Sinton had undermined public confidence in the nursing profession and brought it into disrepute. The tribunal noted that Ms Sinton was a senior and trusted employee, which made her misconduct more egregious. The court also considered the impact of her actions on the public health system and the loss incurred due to her fraudulent activities. Given these factors, the tribunal concluded that Ms Sinton's conduct amounted to misconduct. Furthermore, the tribunal found that the proposed sanctions by the Health Ombudsman were moderate and fair, taking into account the severity of the misconduct and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The tribunal imposed the sanctions proposed by the Health Ombudsman, which included a fine of $10,000 and conditions on Ms Sinton's registration, such as a requirement to undergo a period of supervised practice and to complete additional training in ethics and professional conduct. The tribunal determined that these sanctions were appropriate to address the misconduct and to protect public confidence in the nursing profession.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The parties have filed a statement of agreed facts. There are no factual matters in dispute. The respondent, who was a registered nurse at all relevant times, has represented herself in these proceedings. She has fully cooperated with the proceedings. She has never contested the characterisation of her conduct as alleged by the applicant, nor does she make any submissions about the moderate and fair orders proposed by the applicant by way of sanction. Background The respondent, Ms Laura Angela Sinton, was born on the 21st of July 1960. She was aged between 46 and 58 years at the time of the alleged conduct. She obtained a Bachelor of Nursing from Charles Darwin University in 2013. She was first granted registration as an enrolled nurse by the Board on the 13th of October 1984, and she was granted registration as a registered nurse by the Board on the 31st of July 2013. She continues to hold general registration as both a registered nurse (division 1) and an enrolled nurse (division 2) pursuant to the National Law. The expiry date of her current registrations is the 31st of May 2023. Apart from the current referral, the respondent has no prior conduct notification or criminal history. At the time of the conduct, the respondent was employed as a permanent casual registered nurse at Innisfail Hospital and part time as an administration officer in the oral health department at the Tully Hospital. She has also worked part time as a practice nurse with the Rankin Medical Centre in Innisfail and as a casual registered nurse at Warrina Nursing Home, Innisfail, which is an aged care facility. She resigned from her position with both hospitals and the nursing home as a result of her conviction. She has never been subject to any immediate registration action. She is currently working as practice nurse manager with Rankin Medical Centre. The relevant conduct Between the 5th of March 2006 and the 3rd of March 2018, whilst working as an administration officer at the Tully Hospital Oral Health Unit, the respondent enabled members of her family and another person to receive free dental treatment. She facilitated this in her role as an administrative assistant by entering false health care card details for three family members and the husband of another staff member. As a result, the four patients received free dental health care to the value of $13,898.62, and the respondent’s family received free dental health care of that sum to the value of $12,420.47. As part of her role as an employed administrative officer, it was her responsibility to confirm patient eligibility for public dental treatment before admitting them for treatment. She was a senior staff member and an experienced administration officer and a trusted employee. She was aware that her family members and friend were not eligible and did not have valid concession cards or concession cards at all. The respondent, although aware that family members were not eligible, noticed that the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service had a culture where family members of staff themselves were provided dental services at no cost.

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.