The Health Ombudsman v Chambers - [2017] QCAT 362

CITATION:	The Health Ombudsman v Chambers [2017] QCAT 362
PARTIES:	The Health Ombudsman (Applicant)
v
Joanne Elizabeth Chambers (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR229-16
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Acting Deputy President O’Callaghan (at the time of the hearing) Assisted by Dr Kim Forrester Dr Wayne Sanderson Dr Mary Sidebotham
DELIVERED ON:	23 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	1. In respect of charge one, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. 2. In respect of charge two, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct. 3. In respect of charge three, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. 4. In respect of all the charges, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct. 5. The Respondent is reprimanded. 6. The Respondent is to pay a fine of $2000. 7. The parties bear their own costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – Professional Misconduct – where registered nurse intoxicated at work – where registered nurse failed to notify the Board of conviction – where parties jointly proposed sanction Australian Health Regulation National Law (Queensland) Health Ombudsman Act 2013, s 103, s 104 Health Care Complaints Commission v Stewart [2012] NSWNMT 12 Health Care Complaints Commission v Stewart [2015] NSWNMT 145 The Health Ombudsman v Antley [2016] QCAT 472 Medical Radiation Technologist Board of Queensland v Sanderson [2012] QCAT 107 Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227 Ooi v Medical Board of Queensland [1997] 2 Qd R 176
APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Joanne Chambers has been a registered nurse since 2002. The conduct and criminal proceedings relating to this matter occurred in March and April 2015.
The Health Ombudsman has referred this matter to the Tribunal pursuant to sections 103(1) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the HO Act). The Ombudsman considers that Ms Chambers has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5 of the Australian Health Regulation National Law (Queensland) (the National Law), and asks that disciplinary orders be made against her. The following charges are referred:
Charge 1: That she engaged in unprofessional conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonable expected of a registered health practitioner, and further or in the alternative, that she engaged in conduct inconsistent with being a fit and proper person to hold registration, as a result of pleading guilty to one offence against s 79(1)(a) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) and one offence against s 790(1) and (2A) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), being convicted and fined $1,800 and disqualified from driving in respect of the first offence, and sentenced without recording conviction to 60 hours of community service in respect of the second offence.

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 The Health Ombudsman v Chambers 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: [2017] QCAT 362
Decision Date: 23 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of disciplinary proceedings against Mr Chambers, a registered nurse, the Health Ombudsman brought a case against him before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary and Complaints Tribunal. The Ombudsman alleged that Mr Chambers had engaged in professional misconduct by being intoxicated at work, failing to notify the Board of a conviction, and breaching professional standards in other respects. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Chambers' conduct constituted professional misconduct and, if so, to determine an appropriate sanction. Both parties proposed a sanction of a reprimand and a fine of $2000, which the Tribunal accepted.

The Tribunal identified several key issues, including whether Mr Chambers' conduct amounted to professional misconduct and, if so, the appropriate sanction. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the breaches, Mr Chambers' previous good standing, and the joint proposal for sanction. The Tribunal found that Mr Chambers' conduct did constitute professional misconduct and accepted the jointly proposed sanction. It found that the breaches were serious but that a reprimand and fine would be sufficient, taking into account Mr Chambers' previous good standing.

The Tribunal concluded that Mr Chambers' conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct and accepted the jointly proposed sanction. It found that the breaches were serious but that a reprimand and fine would be sufficient, taking into account Mr Chambers' previous good standing. The Tribunal ordered that Mr Chambers be reprimanded and that he pay a fine of $2000. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that Mr Chambers' conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct and accepted the jointly proposed sanction of a reprimand and a fine of $2000. The Tribunal found that the breaches were serious but that a reprimand and fine would be sufficient, taking into account Mr Chambers' previous good standing. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of charge one, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. In respect of charge two, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.

3. In respect of charge three, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

4. In respect of all the charges, the Respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

5. The Respondent is reprimanded.

6. The Respondent is to pay a fine of $2000.

7. The parties bear their own costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.