Health Ombudsman v Timchur

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Timchur [2023] QCAT 549

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

MARTIN DREW TIMCHUR

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR260-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2023 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Dick SC
Assisted by:
Ms F Banwell
Ms H Barker
Mr K Murphy

ORDERS:

1. The conduct of the respondent in allegation 1 constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’).

2. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is disqualified from applying from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of three years.

4.     No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES — HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS — CHIROPRACTORS — where the respondent was a chiropractor — where the respondent was convicted by a guilty plea of sexually assaulting a patient —where the conduct constitutes professional misconduct — where the respondent voluntarily surrendered his registration — where there is a need to address personal and general deterrence — where the respondent is not practising as a nurse — reprimand

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Health Ombudsman v Chang [2022] QCAT 58

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	N Townsend, Legal Officer of the Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	C Emery, solicitor of C Emery & Associates

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is a referral of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the respondent, pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’).

The grounds

1. The respondent was:

   (a)registered as a chiropractor with a Chiropractic Board of Australia (‘Board’);

   (b)a health service provider within the meaning of section 8(a)(i) of the HO Act; and

   (c)subject to the registration standards, codes and guidelines approved by the board.

The allegations

1. Allegation 1 is that on 29 June 2021, the respondent sexually assaulted a patient at the practice where he worked.  On 3 July 2021, the patient reported the matter to police.  On 27 July 2021, the respondent was charged.  On 31 July 2021, the respondent surrendered his registration.  On 4 July 2022, the respondent pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court of Queensland to one count of sexual assault and on the same day, was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for 18 months.  On the 23 September 2022, the conduct was referred to the Director of Proceedings and the matter was referred to the Tribunal.

Agreed Statement of Facts

1. The parties have agreed on the statement of facts and there are no factual issues in dispute.  The respondent concedes his behaviour amounts to professional misconduct, that is, ‘conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience’.[1]

   [1]Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s…