Medical Board of Australia v YQX
[2023] QCAT 560
•18 December 2023
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Medical Board of Australia v YQX [2023] QCAT 560
PARTIES:
MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA (applicant)
v
YQX (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR047-23
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
18 December 2023
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member Rinaudo AM
Assisted by:
Dr J Cavanagh
Dr A Gupta
Ms M RidleyORDERS:
1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’), YQX has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;
2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, YQX is reprimanded; and
3. Each party bear their own costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES — HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS — MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS — DISCPLINARY PROCEEDINGS — PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT — where the respondent is a general practitioner — where the respondent fraudulently prescribed themselves medication for the purpose of self-medicating — where the conduct was entirely related to and explainable by his physical and psychiatric conditions — where the respondent’s registration is already subject to conditions — finding of professional misconduct — reprimand
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
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
There is a statement of agreed facts. YQX, the respondent, was registered as a medical practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland). At the relevant times, he was employed as a psychiatric registrar at a Queensland hospital. He completed his medical education and was registered as a medical practitioner in 2012.
Notifications were received on or about 7 March 2021 in respect of scripts which the respondent had fraudulently written to obtain medication, including paracetamol codeine, to effectively self-medicate for pain and some depression, which had arisen as a result of a surgery which he had undertaken that unfortunately caused some significant side effects. The respondent was voluntarily admitted to hospital on 19 March 2021 and was discharged in May of 2021. In November 2021, he pleaded guilty to a number of charges, including fraud, forging and uttering, and received a sentence of 24 months’ probation for the charges, with a condition to submit to such medical, psychiatric or psychological assessment and treatment as directed. No conviction was recorded.
It is not necessary now to go through the charges, but there were a number of charges constituted by the respondent writing scripts in the name of a different doctor and then using the scripts to obtain the medication. In the respondent’s submissions, he talks at some length about his condition and the psychiatric issues arising therefrom, and although I will not repeat the details now, certainly the matters set out in paragraph 12 of those submissions in relation to various issues associated with the surgery, are indicative of the difficulties which the respondent had as a result of the surgery.
The parties have agreed on the facts and on the proposed sanction. The characterisation of the conduct, the Tribunal agrees, reaches the standard of professional misconduct. This is at the serious end of offending for doctors to be acting in this way to obtain strong medication, opioid analgesics and must be rightly condemned in the interests of the community. The characterisation as agreed between the parties is accepted by the Tribunal as professional misconduct.
It is noted in the submissions that the following points were made:
(a)YQX’s conduct was entirely related to and explainable by his physical and psychiatric conditions;
(b)YQX’s conduct was obviously born out of desperation;
(c)the criminal offending did not involve any pecuniary or other personal gain of that kind;
(d)YQX is highly remorseful;
(e)indeed, Dr Smith remarked it was evident that YQX had a moderate to marked subjective sense of shame, guilt, remorse and regret for his professional conduct;
(f)also evident that he was determined not to re-offend and appeared most genuine;
(g)YQX immediately cooperated with police, subsequently with Ahpra and also in these proceedings;
(h)YQX was absent from practise for a significant period of 26 months, during which period he sought appropriate medical treatment and rehabilitation;
(i)YQX’s remorse, immediate cooperation and self-initiated rehabilitation are demonstrative of complete insight; and
(j)by now having gained employment and continuing his attendance upon the treating practitioner, YQX has turned his life around and is again a contributing member of the medical profession.
In respect of sanction, it is noted that proceedings are protective, and they are not to punish the practitioner. Insight and remorse are relevant factors in considering the sanction. So are specific and general deterrence, both in respect of the doctor’s personal actions and deterring others from undertaking a similar course of offending.
It is submitted, and the Tribunal accepts, that the period spent away from practice by YQX between June 2021 and January 2023 is relevant to the consideration of sanction today. It is noted that YQX’s registration remains subject to separate conditions, which deal with his underlying health conditions, and that, in the circumstances, a further period of suspension would be onerous.
In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sanction sought is appropriate and makes the following orders:
Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), YQX has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, YQX is reprimanded.
Each party bear their own costs.
0
0
1