Podiatrists Board of Queensland v Farquharson

[2010] QCAT 624

CITATION: Podiatrists Board of Queensland  v Farquharson  [2010] QCAT 624

PARTIES:	Podiatrists Board of Queensland (Applicant)
v
Raechel Adelaide Farquharson (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:   OCR116-10

MATTER TYPE: Occupational Regulation

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Judge Fleur Kingham,
Deputy President
Assisted by Assessors:
Ms N Archibald
Mr B Hughes
Dr H Netscher

DELIVERED ON: 3 December 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Ms Farquharson has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.

2.    Ms Farquharson is reprimanded.

3.    Within two months, Ms Farquharson must nominate to the Board for its approval, a professional development activity dealing with ethics at a level which is appropriate to her level of experience and qualification.

4.    Within six months, at her own expense, Ms Farquharson must complete and provide evidence to the Board attesting to her successful completion of that activity.

5.    Ms Farquharson must submit to random audits of her professional, financial and treatment records by the Board for a period of 2 years.

6.    Ms Farquharson must provide volunteer support for 15 hours to the QUO Podiatry Summer Clinic, her duties and times to be specified by the Director, Associate Professor Lloyd Reed.

7.    Mr Farquharson must pay the Board’s costs of these proceedings as agreed or assessed on a standard basis against the scale applicable in the District Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS : 

HEALTH PRACTITIONER – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where registrant processed false claims for work not performed – where amount small and an isolated incident – where registrant professed misplaced altruism – whether ethics course and random audits sufficient sanction – where registrant required to provide volunteer services for a podiatric clinic, by way of community service

Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 ss 118, 120

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Farquharson is a registered podiatrist. She admits she falsely processed claims against a patient’s private health cover for services not performed and items not purchased. This matter came to light when the patient noted the claims history record provided by his fund. Subsequently, an officer of the fund complained to the Health Quality and Complaints Commission which referred the matter to the Podiatrists Board of Queensland.

1. The Board resolved on 15 June 2009 that it reasonably believed a disciplinary matter existed and that it would deal with the matter by a hearing[1]. As it was required to do, it notified Ms Farquharson who elected to have the matter dealt with by the Tribunal[2].

   [1]        Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 s118

   [2]        Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 s120

1. The matter was referred to the Tribunal in May 2010. Shortly afterwards it was evident the parties agreed a disciplinary ground was established and what orders ought to be made. Directions were made to bring the matter to an early hearing on the papers. That has been delayed by difficulties in securing assessors to form the panel.

1. The Board and Ms Farquharson agree that she has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct, namely:

(a)   Professional conduct of a lesser standard than might reasonably be expected of her by the public or her peers;

(b)   Conduct discreditable to the profession; and

(c)   Fraudulent or dishonest behaviour in the practice of her profession[3].

[3]Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 Schedule definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct (a) (c) and (h)

1. Ms Farquharson wrongly claimed for a podiatry consultation and a pair of orthotics for a patient and a podiatry consultation for that patient’s wife.  Neither of those claims reflected what had taken place. The patient’s wife did not receive any services at all. The patient did not have a valid referral from his General Practitioner, and therefore was not entitled to a refund for the consultation, and he did not receive orthotics.

1. Ms Farquharson received $160 (and waived the gap of $30). The amount that could properly have been claimed is somewhere in the order of $30 to $45.

1. The sum wrongly claimed was small. Regardless of the amount involved, it is an offence of dishonesty. Professionals enjoy positions of trust within the community and honesty is a core ethical requirement.

1. More relevant in mitigation is that this appears to be an isolated incident. The parties submitted that Ms Farquharson, wrongly, was motivated by misguided altruistic intentions towards the patient. She was aware that he did not have the necessary referral to claim a refund but to pay the full fee would be difficult for him.

1. There were other options open to Ms Farquharson. She could have deferred treatment so he could obtain the referral. She could have entered into a plan for him to pay the fee over time. She could have considered providing services to him pro bono. It is not clear from the material how long Ms Farquharson has been in practice. Regardless, on a moment’s reflection she would understand that her solution to that dilemma involved robbing Peter (the health fund) to pay Paul (Ms Farquharson - or her practice).

1. The parties have jointly submitted that within 6 months of the order Ms Farquharson undergo, at her own expense, approved professional development activities dealing with ethics. This should be at a level that is appropriate taking into account her prior training and as specific as possible to her profession.

1. The parties also seek an order that Ms Farquharson submit to random audits of her professional, financial and treatment records for a period of 2 years.

1. The former condition will promote a deeper understanding of professional ethical obligations. The latter will provide assurance that the offending conduct is not repeated.

1. The Tribunal was concerned that the proposed conditions, even with a public reprimand, did not adequately reflect the seriousness with which acts of dishonesty are viewed. Borrowing from the criminal jurisdiction, it seemed that an order in the nature of community service was an appropriate deterrence for Ms Farquharson and to others. It also neatly fits with the altruism Ms Farquharson professed in relation to the conduct.

1. The Queensland University of Technology operates a podiatry clinic which provides services at a reduced rate by students under professional supervision. It is often in need of assistance from the profession. There is a summer clinic which runs between 13 January and 19 February 2011. Ms Farquharson has not opposed an order that she provide volunteer support for 15 hours, her duties and times to be specified by the Director, Associate Professor Lloyd Reed[4].

   [4]The Tribunal may order a registrant to do anything it considers appropriate Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 s241(2)(l)(i)

1. Ms Farquharson has agreed to pay the costs of these proceedings. They should be agreed or assessed against the District court scale on a standard basis.