Health Ombudsman v Yqu

[2023] QCAT 443

[2023] QCAT 443

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

RINAUDO AM, Judicial Member

Assisted by:

PROFESSOR P BAKER

DR J CAVANAGH
MS M RIDLEY

No OCR 117 of 2021

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN  Applicant

v

YQU  Respondent

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2023 JUDGMENT

[1]    JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter under part 10, division 1 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013. The documents considered by the Tribunal are contained in a folder and those documents form the basis of the material for the purposes of this hearing.

[2]    The complaint in this matter was made on the 11th of October 2019, and the complaint was made by the husband of the patient. The respondent is a male, born [in the early 1970s]. He was awarded a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery from the University of Queensland in [the late 2000s]. And he was first granted general registration as a medical practitioner [the following year]. At all relevant times, he practised as a medical practitioner at [a Brisbane family medical clinic].

[3]    The conduct the subject of the allegations is contained in the joint submission on sanction at paragraph 13 and following. In short compass, the patient was diagnosed with stage 4 melanoma and was suffering from side effects of her treatment and anxiety, for which the respondent referred her to a psychologist. During the course of treating the patient, a sexual relationship developed between the respondent and the patient, between roughly the period from the 21st of June 2018 up to about the 21st of June 2019.

[4]    Upon the complaint being made, the respondent was subject to immediate registration action requiring him not to treat female patients. This was subsequently amended on the 19th of May 2020 to accommodate telehealth consultations. On the 3rd of March 2023, the conditions were varied so that the practice monitor conditions and the conditions requiring that the respondent practise only in employment in practices approved by the Health Ombudsman were removed.

[5]    [Redacted]. He suffers a mental health condition as a result of a previous occupation. It is noted by the Tribunal that the respondent had a period of rehabilitation involving receiving treatment from a psychiatrist, Dr Frank New, and a psychologist, Ms Megan Fry, and each have prepared reports which were provided in evidence.

[6]    The Tribunal in determining sanction today has taken into account the principles of sanction, in particular that the purpose of the discipline proceedings is to protect, not to punish, and is to prevent practitioners who are unfit to practise from practising, securing maintenance of professional standards, assuring members of the public and the profession that appropriate standards are being maintained and that professional misconduct will not be tolerated, and bringing home to the practitioner the seriousness of the conduct, deterring the practitioner from any further departures from appropriate standards, deterring other members of the profession that might be minded to act in a similar way, and imposing restrictions on the practitioner’s right to practise so as to ensure that the public is protected.

[7]    The Tribunal is satisfied in this case that the conduct meets the level of professional misconduct and notes that the sanction that is proposed is that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of four months, with that suspension being wholly suspended for an operational period of 18 months or, in the alternative, that the respondent be fined the sum of $15,000, payable within six months of the date of the order.

[8]    The Tribunal is, in the circumstances of this particular matter, satisfied, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the respondent’s history, his voluntary removal from practice from October 2021 to November 2022, his rehabilitation as noted above, his cooperation, what appears to be his insight and remorse, and taking into account the principles cited in Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545 having regard to the principles as stated previously, that in this case, to properly meet the principles, the practitioner should be suspended from practice. In the circumstances, the Tribunal orders that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of four months, with that suspension to be wholly suspended for an operational period of 18 months, the practitioner be reprimanded and no order as to costs.