Health Ombudsman v White

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v White  [2019] QCAT 36

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN
(applicant)

v

HAYDEN THOMAS WESLEY WHITE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR298-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2019 and 1 May 2019

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Sheridan

Assisted by:
Dr G Powell
Dr D Evans
Mr M Halliday

ORDERS:

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

2. Pursuant to s 107(3) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent be reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to s 107(3) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is fined an amount of $5,000 to be paid to the Health Ombudsman in five equal instalments payable by the end of each month with the first payment due by 31 March 2019.

4.   Each party bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – DEPARTURES FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS – where the practitioner admitted to unlawfully misappropriating and self-administering Schedule 8 controlled drugs over a six month period – where, at the time of the conduct, the practitioner had an impairment – where the practitioner admitted to professional misconduct – whether the practitioner should be subject to a reprimand and/or a period of suspension or fine

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 103, s 104, s 107
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law(Queensland), s 5
Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 188

Medical Board of Australia v Andrew [2015] QCAT 94, distinguished.
Medical Board of Australia v Dr “C” [2012] SAHPT 4, distinguished.
Medical Board of Australia v Henning [2014] SAHPT 15, distinguished.
Medical Board of Australia v Stephens [2018] WASAT 13, distinguished.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

M T Hickey, instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

G W Diehm QC, instructed by Ashurst Australia

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 20 December 2017, the Health Ombudsman referred to the Tribunal a health service complaint against the respondent pursuant to s 103(1)(a) and s 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (HO Act).  The matters alleged in the disciplinary referral arose from a self-disclosure notification made by the respondent.

2. There are three charges the subject of the referral, which relate to the respondent’s conduct whilst working as the director of the intensive care unit at a metropolitan hospital (the ICU).  In summary, by the charges it is alleged that between May 2013 and mid-November 2013:

   (a)Charge 1 – the respondent misappropriated a Schedule 8 drug, Fentanyl, from his employer, in that he diverted Fentanyl intended to be discarded in the intensive care unit for the purposes of self-administration;

   (b)Charge 2 – the respondent unlawfully possessed a Schedule 8 drug, Fentanyl, in that he took possession of the drug in the manner outlined in charge 1 for the…