Health Ombudsman v Veltmeyer - [2021] QCAT 77

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Veltmeyer [2021] QCAT 77

PARTIES: HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

MARK ANTHONY VELTMEYER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR233-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2021

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President
Assisted by:
Dr J Cavanagh
Dr D Khursandi
Mr G Kerridge

ORDERS:
1. 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. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to section 107(3)(c) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is required to pay a fine of $15,000 to the applicant within a period of six months.

4. Each party must bear the party’s own costs for the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – boundary violation – where the respondent is a general practitioner – where the respondent commenced a relationship with a patient under his care – where the respondent continued to treat the patient during the course of their relationship – where there was inordinate delay in the investigation and referral of the matter – where the parties agree as to the characterisation of the conduct and sanction – whether the proposed sanction is appropriate

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

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 5, s 226

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 100

Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545
Health Ombudsman v Gillespie [2021] QCAT 54
Health Ombudsman v Upadhyay [2020] QCAT 163
Legal Services Commissioner v McLeod [2020] QCAT 371
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

Moray & Agnew

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

This is a referral of a health service complaint against Mark Anthony Veltmeyer (respondent), pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act), by the Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (applicant). The applicant alleges, in the referral filed 28 June 2019, that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and seeks orders for sanction. The respondent admits all paragraphs of the referral in his response, filed 1 October 2019.
In this matter, the parties have jointly filed and rely upon a Statement of Agreed Facts, and there are no factual issues in dispute. The parties also agree as to the characterisation of the conduct and appropriate orders by way of sanction.

Background

The respondent is 59 years old. He obtained a Bachelor of Medicine / Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) from the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Veltmeyer 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: [2021] QCAT 77
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Health Ombudsman v Veltmeyer, the Health Ombudsman (applicant) brought disciplinary proceedings against Mark Anthony Veltmeyer (respondent), a registered medical practitioner, alleging professional misconduct. The respondent admitted to commencing a romantic relationship with a patient under his care and continued to treat her during the relationship, which constituted a breach of professional boundaries. Both parties agreed on the characterization of the conduct and the appropriate sanctions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what the appropriate sanction should be. The court considered the applicable codes of conduct and guidelines, which emphasized the importance of maintaining professional boundaries with patients and avoiding providing medical care to individuals with whom the practitioner has a close personal relationship.

The court found that the respondent's conduct was in clear breach of the relevant codes of conduct and guidelines, as it fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience. The court accepted the parties' submissions that the appropriate orders by way of sanction were a reprimand and a fine of $15,000. The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the breach, the absence of any harm to the patient, and the delay in the investigation and referral of the matter to the Tribunal. The court determined that a reprimand and a fine adequately addressed considerations of denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and maintenance of professional standards.

The court ordered that the respondent be reprimanded and required to pay a fine of $15,000 within six months. The court also recommended that the Board consider whether it is necessary or appropriate for the reprimand to be recorded on the Register for more than two years, given the significant delay in the investigation and referral of the matter. The parties agreed that there should be no order for costs, and the orders of the Tribunal reflected the default position pursuant to section 100 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

Orders