Health Ombudsman v Steptoe

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Steptoe  [2020] QCAT 162

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

DAYMAN PAUL STEPTOE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR166-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

27 May 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC, assisted by Dr D Khursandi, Dr J Cavanagh and Ms C Eliot.

ORDERS:

1.   The Tribunal decides that the respondent behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct. 

2.   The Tribunal reprimands the respondent.

3.   The parties bear their own costs of this proceeding. 

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS – Professional misconduct – self-administration of opioid drugs – drugs ostensibly prescribed for patients – treatment of painful injury to knee – self notification and voluntary cessation of practice – extended course of treatment – resumed practice subject to conditions - favourable medical opinion – disruption to career – mitigating circumstances – sanction

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 107

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) s 5

Health Ombudsman v NLM [2018] QCAT 164
Health Ombudsman v White [2019] QCAT 36
Medical Board of Australia v C [2012] SAHPT 4
Medical Board of Australia and Stephens [2018] WASAT 13

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	J Hunter QC, instructed by Avant Mutual solicitors.
APPEARANCES:	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. 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. I am sitting with assessors Ms Elliot, Dr Khursandi, and Dr Cavanagh in accordance with the Act.[1] 

   [1]Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 126. For their function, see s 127.

2. The respondent is and was at the relevant time a registered medical practitioner, and hence a registered health practitioner for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld). The applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct, in that he inappropriately prescribed Schedule 8 drugs, ostensibly for patients but in fact to self-administer, and otherwise failed properly to deal with Schedule 8 drugs.

3. The parties have provided the Tribunal with an agreed statement of facts.  The respondent, who has been legally represented in these proceedings, admits the grounds alleged, and that the conduct in question amounts to professional misconduct.  The parties have provided written submissions to the Tribunal.  The hearing proceeded on the papers, in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 32.

4. The Tribunal accepts the facts set out in the agreed statement of facts.  They, and some additional information before the Tribunal, may be summarised as follows:  The respondent was born in 1975 and is now 44.  He was first registered as a medical practitioner in 2010.  He was…