Health Ombudsman v Tu

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Tu [2020] QCAT 91

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

DENNIS TU

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR097-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2020 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President
Assisted by:
Ms Mary Barnett,
Ms Jennifer Felton

Dr Anthony Tuckett

ORDERS:

1. In relation to Allegations 1, 2 and 4, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. In relation to Allegation 3, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.

3. Pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal disqualifies the respondent from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of two years.

4.   No order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was a enrolled nurse – where the respondent committed criminal offences of stealing as a servant and possessing dangerous drugs – where the respondent pleaded guilty to the offences in the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court – whether such conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – where the respondent contravened s 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law by failing to notify the Nursing & Midwifery Board within 7 days of relevant events – whether such conduct should be characterised as unprofessional conduct – what sanction should be imposed for professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 130

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

Health Ombudsman v Sabo [2019] QCAT 256

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Morey [2017] QCAT 249
Health Care Complaints Commission v Ashford [2015] NSW CATOD 15

Health Ombudsman v Henson [2020] QCAT 72

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

  1. This is a referral of a health service complaint against Dennis Tu (“the respondent”), pursuant to s 103(1)(a) and s 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (“HO Act”), by the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (“the applicant”).

  2. The respondent is a 27-year-old former enrolled nurse.  He was registered from October 2013 until 28 February 2019, when his registration lapsed upon his failure to apply for its renewal.  The conduct the subject of the referral occurred between 2015 and 2018, when the respondent was aged between 22 and 25 years.  The referral contains four “Allegations”. 

  3. Allegation 1 relates to the respondent’s conviction of criminal offences in the Magistrates Court on 5 May 2016.  On that day the respondent pleaded guilty to three offences, namely, one…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Tu 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
[2020] QCAT 91
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a disciplinary proceeding against an enrolled nurse, Tu, who had been found guilty of criminal offences, including stealing as a servant and possessing dangerous drugs. These offences were committed while Tu was in the course of her employment. The respondent had pleaded guilty to these charges in both the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court. The central issue for the court was whether Tu's criminal conduct should be classified as professional misconduct and whether her failure to notify the Nursing & Midwifery Board within the required timeframe under section 130 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law constituted unprofessional conduct. The court also needed to determine the appropriate sanction for the professional and unprofessional conduct.

The court examined the nature of Tu's offences and concluded that her criminal acts constituted professional misconduct. The court was particularly concerned with Tu's breach of the duty of trust and confidence inherent in her professional role as a nurse. Additionally, the court found that Tu's failure to notify the relevant authorities within the stipulated period was indeed unprofessional conduct. The court considered these actions to significantly undermine the integrity of the nursing profession and the public's trust in health practitioners.

Based on the findings, the Tribunal disqualified Tu from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of two years. This decision was made to protect the public and uphold the standards of the profession. The court did not order any costs to be paid by the respondent.

In summary, the Tribunal found Tu guilty of both professional and unprofessional conduct and imposed a two-year disqualification from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In relation to Allegations 1, 2 and 4, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. In relation to Allegation 3, pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.

3. Pursuant to s 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal disqualifies the respondent from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of two years.

4. No order as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.