Health Ombudsman v Stibbard - [2022] QCAT 93

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Stibbard [2022] QCAT 93

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

KELLIE JADE STIBBARD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR188-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2022

HEARING DATE:

1 April 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC,
Assisted by:
Ms H Uren,
Mrs P Hall,
Mr M Lock.

ORDERS:

1.   The Tribunal decides that the conduct of the respondent set out in the amended annexure to the referral amounted collectively to professional misconduct.

2.   The respondent is reprimanded.

3.   The registration of the respondent is suspended for a period of four months, to commence on 10 April 2022.

4.   The following conditions are imposed on the registration of the respondent, to take effect from 10 August 2022:

(a)    The respondent must undergo a period of mentoring for at least two hours each month for a period of twelve months.

(b)   The mentoring must be face to face, and focus on ethical dispensing and decision-making.

(c)    The respondent must nominate, for approval by the Pharmacy Board of Australia, a mentor who must be a pharmacist practicing in an accredited pharmacy and senior to the respondent in age and experience. The mentor must provide a written report to the Board every three months and upon completion of the mentoring period.

(d)   The respondent must, within twelve months from these conditions taking effect, complete (and achieve at least a pass mark for) the course Ethics and Dispensing in Pharmacy Practice (Units 1 through 4) run by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia or, if such course is not available, another similar course approved by the Board. At the completion of the course, the respondent must submit to the Board documentary evidence certifying her completion of it.

(e)    The respondent is responsible for paying all costs associated with compliance with these conditions.

5.   The National Law Part 7 Division 11 Subdivision 2 applies to the conditions, and the review period is 16 Months from 10 April 2022.

6.   The respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of the application, fixed at $3,000.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – MISCONDUCT IN PROFESSIONAL RESPECT – dispensing schedule 4 drugs without a prescription – falsifying records – generating false repeats – professional misconduct – parties agreed on sanction – agreed sanction imposed.

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

Health Ombudsman v Dalziel [2017] QCAT 442
Health Ombudsman v Zuyderwyk [2019] QCAT 74
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 375
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Roe [2018] WASAT 92

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

This is a reference by the applicant of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 103(1)(a), s…

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.

Continue reading Health Ombudsman v Stibbard

Details

AGLC: Health Ombudsman v Stibbard [2022] QCAT 93
Case: [2022] QCAT 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard a case in which the Health Ombudsman sought disciplinary action against a pharmacist, Kellie Jade Stibbard. The Ombudsman alleged that Ms Stibbard engaged in professional misconduct by dispensing schedule 4 drugs without a prescription or in quantities exceeding the prescription, falsifying dispensing records, and generating false repeat authorisations. The parties agreed on the facts of the case, with Ms Stibbard admitting to the allegations. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct, given the serious breach of trust and obligations in relation to proper dispensing of medication.

In imposing a sanction, the Tribunal considered factors such as the health and safety of the public, personal and general deterrence, the maintenance of professional standards, and the maintenance of public confidence. The parties agreed that Ms Stibbard should be reprimanded, her registration should be suspended for four months, and conditions should be imposed on her registration. These conditions included a period of mentoring, completion of a specified course in ethics and dispensing in pharmacies, and payment of the applicant's costs of the application. The Tribunal found that the proposed sanction was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal's decision was that the conduct of Ms Stibbard amounted collectively to professional misconduct. She was reprimanded, her registration was suspended for four months, and conditions were imposed on her registration. These conditions included a period of mentoring, completion of a specified course in ethics and dispensing in pharmacies, and payment of the applicant's costs of the application. The Tribunal's decision was based on the agreed sanction, the extent and persistence of the relevant conduct, and the need to maintain professional standards and public confidence.

Orders