Health Ombudsman v Ting

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Ting [2022] QCAT 349

PARTIES:

Director of proceeedings on behalf of the health ombudsman

(applicant)

v

john yuk ching ting

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR174-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2022

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2022 to 28 July 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Dr J Phipps
Associate Professor G Senator
Ms M Ridley

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the practitioner has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(b)(e) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the practitioner’s registration is cancelled.

3. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the practitioner is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered medical health practitioner indefinitely.

4. Pursuant to section 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the immediate registration action taken by the Board on 7 March 2019 is set aside.

5.     Unless written submissions by a party seeking an order for costs are filed in the Tribunal and served within 14 days from the date of this decision, the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

6.     If such submissions are filed and served, the other party may file and serve any submissions in response within 14 days thereafter.

7.     Any such application will be determined by the Tribunal on the papers subject to any written submissions to the contrary by either of the parties.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY HEARING -where respondent is a general practitioner whose registration has been suspended for many years as a result of immediate registration action taken by the Board – where the applicant alleges that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct – where the disciplinary referral contains five discrete allegations some of which are closely interrelated – where the respondent’s registration had been erased in 1997 by the Queensland Medical Assessment Tribunal as a result of the respondent’s conviction  and imprisonment for Medicare fraud in the District Court in 1996 – where his registration was re-instated in 1999 – where he returned to general practice in 2017 – where in 2019 his endorsements to prescribe Schedule 8 controlled drugs and Schedule 4 drugs of dependency were cancelled – where in March 2018 the respondent was subject to a performance assessment at the direction of the Board which found that in many respects his professional performance was unsatisfactory – where Board imposed conditions on his registration – where respondent breached both the terms of the cancellation notice and the conditions imposed by the Board – where in 2018 he treated a patient in a manner that was below the standard expected of a general practitioner – where in 2017 he prescribed a Schedule 8 controlled drug to a patient he had not previously met and who had recently been released from prison…