Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2015
  4. Psychologist Board of Australia v Golus - [2015] QCAT 12

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Psychologist Board of Australia v Golus[2015] QCAT 12

Psychologist Board of Australia v Golus[2015] QCAT 12

CITATION:

Psychologist Board of Australia v Golus [2015] QCAT 12

PARTIES:

Psychologist Board of Australia

(Applicant)

 

v

 

Peter Golus

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR243-12

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane 

DECISION OF:

Judge Alexander Horneman-Wren SC, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Ms Katarina Fritzon

Ms Suzanne Fulford

Mr Kai Dahl

DELIVERED ON:

19 January 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane 

ORDERS MADE:

  1. Dr Golus is found to have behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  2. Dr Golus is reprimanded.
  3. The reprimand be recorded on Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist and remain in place for a period of 12 months from the date of the Order.
  4. The following conditions be imposed on Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist:
    1. The registrant will undertake no less than 12 sessions of supervision of one (1) hour per session at monthly intervals, with a Board approved supervisor.
    2. The supervision referred to in paragraph (a) herein will be at the registrant’s expense and will focus on the maintenance of professional boundaries, in accordance with the Australia Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and Guidelines.
    3. The supervision referred to in paragraph (a) is to:
      1. Commence from the date of the Order;
      2. Be suspended during any periods when the registrant is not practising in the profession of psychology irrespective of whether he is employed or self-employed in a public or private capacity;
      3. Resume upon the registrant recommencing the practice of psychology irrespective of whether he is employed or self-employed in public or private practice capacity;
      4. Continue until the 12 sessions of supervision referred to in paragraph (a) above have been completed.
    4. The registrant will allow a representative of the Board to contact and exchange information with his supervisor, at such time or times as the Board shall determine for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the conditions.
    5. The registrant will notify the Board of his current practising arrangements in the profession of psychology, whether in employment or private practice, within seven (7) days of the date of the Order. The registrant will notify the Board of any change in his practising arrangements within the seven (7) days of any subsequent change.
    6. The registrant will notify his current employer (if applicable), in writing, of the obligations, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order or within seven (7) days of the commencement of any new position of employment within the practice of psychology.
    7. The registrant will provide to the Board with a copy of the correspondence referred to in the preceding paragraph within 14 days of the date of the Order or within 14 days of the commencement of any new position of employment within the practice of psychology.
    8. The registrant will allow a representative of the Board to contact and exchange information with him and each employer/hospital and health service (as applicable) where he holds employment/clinical privileges etc, and the registrant will allow a representative of the Board to enter into his place of practice (whether in employment or private practice), at such time or times as the Board shall determine for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the conditions.
  5. In the event that Dr Golus is unable to comply with these conditions for any reason associated with ill health, Dr Golus:
    1. Will, as soon as his health permits, notify the Board in writing that he will be/was unable to comply with the conditions;
    2. Will provide a supporting report/medical certificate, satisfactory to the Board, from his treating medical specialist; and
    3. Subject to satisfaction of the preceding sub-paragraphs, will not be considered to be in breach of these conditions.
  6. In the event that Dr Golus is unable to participate in supervision session/s due to ill health, unemployment or cessation of practice in the profession of psychology, the Board has discretion to either:
    1. Allow Dr Golus to increase the hours of supervision during subsequent month/s; or
    2. Extend the duration of the conditions for the period that Dr Golus was unable to comply due to ill health, unemployment or cessation of practice in the profession of psychology.
  7. In the event that Dr Golus is unable to participate in the course of education due to ill health, the Board has discretion to agree to extend the duration of the conditions for the period that Dr Golus was unable to participate due to ill health.
  8. The conditions are to be recorded on Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist and remain in place for a period of 12 months from the date of the Order, after which time the conditions will be reviewed by the Board. In accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6) above, the Board may, at its discretion, extend the period if Dr Golus has not completed the conditions due to ill-health, unemployment or cessation of practice in the profession of psychology. The conditions will be discharged, and removed from Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist when the Board is satisfied that Dr Golus has satisfactorily completed the conditions.
  9. Dr Golus may not apply for a review of the conditions imposed on his registration for a period of 18 months.
  10.  The Tribunal makes no order as to costs.
  11.  Publication of:
  1. (a)
    the contents of a document or other thing produced to the Tribunal;
  2. (b)
    evidence given before the Tribunal; and
  3. (c)
    any other information

is prohibited to the extent that it enables the junior administrative officer to be identified.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PSYCHOLOGISTS – where the respondent admitted to failing to maintain professional boundaries – whether the respondent engaged in conduct which constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct – where the parties agreed on a sanction – whether the proposed sanction is appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 314(2)

Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld), s 123, s 124(1), s 240(2), s 240(5), s 242(3)(a), s 244(1), s 244(3)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal 2009 (Qld), s 66

Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

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

  1. [1]
    The Psychology Board of Australia has referred disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal regarding the conduct of Dr Peter Golus. The ground for disciplinary action is that Dr Golus behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct  pursuant to s 124(1) of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999 (Qld). That Act is now known as the Health Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Act 1999 (Qld) (‘Disciplinary Proceedings Act’).

Jurisdiction

  1. [2]
    On 22 July 2009, the Office of the Health Practitioners Registration Board resolved to investigate a complaint against Dr Golus. For the purposes of s 289 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’), this occurred before the participation day, 1 July 2010.[1] Consequently, the Psychology Board of Australia has brought this matter under the Disciplinary Proceedings Act, which applied at the time the complaint was being dealt with.
  2. [3]
    The Disciplinary Proceedings Act has been repealed, effective 1 July 2014. Under s 314(2) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal may continue to hear the matter under the Disciplinary Proceedings Act as if that Act had not been repealed.

The Ground of Disciplinary Action

  1. [4]
    The Board alleges that Dr Golus engaged in unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards a work colleague and that the conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct.
  2. [5]
    At the time of the conduct Dr Golus was employed as a forensic psychologist by Queensland Health and the work colleague was a junior administrative officer.
  3. [6]
    On 29 May 2009 the junior administrative officer, in response to a query from Dr Golus, swore at him and left the room they were in. Dr Golus immediately followed the junior administrative officer and, while the junior administrative officer was seated at her desk, Dr Golus put his arm around her shoulder, said into her ear words to the effect of ‘I am sorry’, and kissed her on the cheek.
  4. [7]
    The junior administrative officer also stated that if she had not moved her head, Dr Golus would have kissed her on the lips. She said that the conduct resulted in her feeling ‘violated’ and that the entire experience was ‘gross’.
  5. [8]
    The junior administrative officer stated that Dr Golus had a habit of touching her on the shoulders, arms and back. On at least one occasion prior to the incident, in response to such conduct, the junior administrative officer had asked Dr Golus not to touch her.
  6. [9]
    There is disagreement between the parties as to whether the kiss was close to the junior administrative officer’s mouth. However, the Board submits that wherever the kiss was applied, Dr Golus’ conduct in kissing the junior administrative officer demonstrates a failure to maintain professional boundaries. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to resolve the issue of where exactly Dr Golus kissed his colleague.

Admissions

  1. [10]
    The parties have presented a statement of agreed facts to the Tribunal substantially narrowing the relevant issues in this matter. They have also jointly proposed a sanction.
  2. [11]
    Dr Golus admits that his conduct during the incident was unwanted, unwelcome, and uninvited by the junior administrative officer. Further, it was inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.
  3. [12]
    Dr Golus also admits that his conduct:
    1. (1)
      was contrary to his obligations under the Queensland Health Code of Conduct;
    2. (2)
      constituted sexual harassment for the purposes of the Queensland Health Sexual Harassment Human Resources Policy;
    3. (3)
      was contrary to the Australian Psychological Society (‘APS’) Code of Ethics and Ethical Guidelines; and
    4. (4)
      was unsatisfactory professional conduct for the purposes of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act.

Disciplinary History

  1. [13]
    When determining whether a registrant has behaved in a way which constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct, while not limited to these matters, the Tribunal must have regard to: any relevant codes of practice; and any previous decisions of a disciplinary body.[2]

Psychologists Board of Queensland

  1. [14]
    At the time of the incident, Dr Golus was subject to undertakings given to the Psychologists Board of Queensland after grounds for disciplinary action arose from his contact and relationship with a patient outside the treating relationship.
  2. [15]
    After investigating the complaint, the Psychologists Board of Queensland found that Dr Golus had: failed to maintain appropriate patient clinical records; failed to seek advice from professional colleagues as to how to manage the relationship; and had an inappropriate relationship with the patient outside the treating relationship in contravention of the APS Guidelines.
  3. [16]
    The undertakings given were, relevantly, that Dr Golus:

will, for a period of 12 months, undertake supervision of not less than two hours per month with a Board approved supervisor … addressing the Australian Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and Guidelines regarding the … maintenance of professional boundaries.

  1. [17]
    These undertakings were in place for approximately six months prior to the incident on 29 May 2009.

Queensland Health and Queensland Public Service Commission

  1. [18]
    Queensland Health also conducted an investigation into the incident. Queensland Health is not a disciplinary body as defined in the Disciplinary Proceedings Act, but the Board submits that its findings are relevant in determining whether unsatisfactory professional conduct has occurred.
  2. [19]
    Of particular concern to Queensland Health was the power imbalance between Dr Golus and the junior administrative officer. In concluding that the allegations were serious, Queensland Health took into account: the nature of the incident; Dr Golus’ role as a psychologist; and the shortcoming in his ability to maintain appropriate boundaries.
  3. [20]
    Queensland Health concluded that Dr Golus continued ‘to lack the ability to maintain appropriate boundaries’ and that he was liable to disciplinary action under s 187(1)(b), (f) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld). Queensland Health imposed a penalty by way of reduction in pay increment and placed him on a performance improvement plan.
  4. [21]
    Dr Golus appealed the decision of Queensland Health to the Queensland Public Service Commission in respect of the penalty imposed only. The Commission dismissed the appeal finding the decision to be fair and reasonable.

Professional Codes and Policies

  1. [22]
    The Queensland Health Code of Conduct was developed under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld) and applies to all Queensland Health employees. Breach of the Code of Conduct does not, of itself, give rise to disciplinary proceedings.[3] Dr Golus admits that his conduct was contrary to his obligations arising under the Queensland Health Code of Conduct.
  2. [23]
    The APS Code of Ethics applies to any psychologist who is a member of the APS, as Dr Golus is. The Code of Ethics does not create any duties, but its purpose is to set ‘specific standards to guide both psychologists and members of the public to a clear understanding and expectation of what is considered ethical professional conduct by psychologists’. Dr Golus admits that his conduct was contrary to the Code of Ethics.
  3. [24]
    The E5 - Sexual Harassment, Human Resources Policy applies to all Queensland Health employees and outlines the responsibility they have in ensuring the workplace is free from sexual harassment. The definition in the Policy of sexual harassment is, ‘any form of unwanted, unwelcome or uninvited sexual behaviour intended to, or likely to degrade or humiliate another person’. Dr Golus admits that his conduct constituted sexual harassment for the purposes of the Policy.

Finding

  1. [25]
    Dr Golus’ conduct towards the junior administrative officer was unwelcome and uninvited and amounts to unprofessional and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. Dr Golus’ ignorance of the junior administrative officer’s request not to touch her and his conduct show a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
  2. [26]
    The conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Sanction

  1. [27]
    Having found that Dr Golus behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct under the Disciplinary Proceedings Act, it is appropriate that the Tribunal impose a sanction.
  2. [28]
    The parties, through their negotiations, have jointly proposed the following sanction:
    1. (1)
      Dr Golus is found to have behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct.
    2. (2)
      Dr Golus is reprimanded.
    3. (3)
      The reprimand be recorded on Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist and remain in place for a period of 12 months from the date of the Order.
    4. (4)
      The following conditions be imposed on Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist:
      1. (a)
        The registrant is to complete, within 12 months of the date of the Order and at his own expense, a course of education which incorporates professional responsibility, ethics and communication – such course to be approved, in advance, by the Board.
      2. (b)
        The registrant will undertake no less than 12 sessions of supervision of one (1) hour per session at monthly intervals, with a Board approved supervisor.
      3. (c)
        The supervision referred to in paragraph (b) herein will be at the registrant’s expense and will focus on the maintenance of professional boundaries, in accordance with the Australia Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and Guidelines.
      4. (d)
        The supervision referred to in paragraph (b) is to:
        1. (i)
          Commence from the date of the Order;
        2. (ii)
          Be suspended during any periods when the registrant is not practicing in the profession of psychology irrespective of whether he is employed or self-employed in a public or private capacity;
        3. (iii)
          Resume upon the registrant recommencing the practice of psychology irrespective of whether he is employed or self-employed in public or private practice capacity;
        4. (iv)
          Continue until the 12 sessions of supervision referred to in paragraph (b) above have been completed.
      5. (e)
        The registrant will allow a representative of the Board to contact and exchange information with his supervisor, at such time or times as the Board shall determine for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the conditions.
      6. (f)
        The registrant will notify the Board of his current practicing arrangements in the profession of psychology, whether in employment or private practice, within seven (7) days of the date of the Order. The registrant will notify the Board of any change in his practicing arrangements within the seven (7) days of any subsequent change.
      7. (g)
        The registrant will notify his current employer (if applicable), in writing, of the obligations, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order or within seven (7) days of the commencement of any new position of employment within the practice of psychology.
      8. (h)
        The registrant will provide to the Board with a copy of the correspondence referred to in the preceding paragraph within 14 days of the date of the Order or within 14 days of the commencement of any new position of employment within the practice of psychology.
      9. (i)
        The registrant will allow a representative of the Board to contact and exchange information with him and each employer/hospital and health service (as applicable) where he holds employment/clinical privileges etc, and the registrant will allow a representative of the Board to enter into his place of practice (whether in employment or private practice), at such time or times as the Board shall determine for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the conditions.
    5. (5)
      In the event that Dr Golus is unable to comply with these conditions for any reason associated with ill health, Dr Golus:
      1. (a)
        Will, as soon as his health permits, notify the Board in writing that he will be/was unable to comply with the conditions;
      2. (b)
        Will provide a supporting report/medical certificate, satisfactory to the Board, from his treating medical specialist; and
      3. (c)
        Subject to satisfaction of the preceding sub-paragraphs, will not be considered to be in breach of these conditions.
    6. (6)
      In the event that Dr Golus is unable to participate in supervision session/s due to ill health, unemployment or cessation of practice in the profession of psychology, the Board has discretion to either:
      1. (a)
        Allow Dr Golus to increase the hours of supervision during subsequent month/s; or
      2. (b)
        Extend the duration of the conditions for the period that Dr Golus was unable to comply due to ill health, unemployment or cessation of practice in the profession of psychology.
    7. (7)
      In the event that Dr Golus is unable to participate in the course of education due to ill health, the Board has discretion to agree to extend the duration of the conditions for the period that Dr Golus was unable to participate due to ill health.
    8. (8)
      The conditions are to be recorded on Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist and remain in place for a period of 12 months from the date of the Order, after which time the conditions will be reviewed by the Board. In accordance with paragraphs (5) and (6) above, the Board may, at its discretion, extend the period if Dr Golus has not completed the conditions due to ill-health, unemployment or cessation of practice in the profession of psychology. The conditions will be discharged, and removed from Dr Golus’ registration as a psychologist when the Board is satisfied that Dr Golus has satisfactorily completed the conditions.
  3. [29]
    Dr Golus has, with the approval of the Board, attended a workshop ‘Safe Professional Boundaries – Being Close While Being Distant’. The parties submit that his attendance at this workshop satisfies the condition proposed in paragraph (4)(a). In those circumstances there appears to be no utility in imposing that condition by way of sanction.
  4. [30]
    The Board submits that imposing the supervision condition on Dr Golus will enable the Board to monitor Dr Golus’ dealings and assess whether he is able to apply the knowledge gained from the workshop and his supervision in practice.
  5. [31]
    The Board also submits that the supervision condition, requiring one hour of supervision per month for 12 months, is neither onerous nor unreasonably expensive for Dr Golus.
  6. [32]
    It was noted in Medical Board of Australia v Martin that:

The Tribunal ought not to depart from the proposed sanction agreed between the parties unless it falls outside the permissible range of sanction for the conduct, bearing in mind that the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is protective rather than punitive.[4]

  1. [33]
    In assessing the appropriateness of the sanction, the Tribunal must take into account the previous findings of the Psychologists Board of Queensland and the purposes of disciplinary action: s 123 of the Disciplinary Proceeding Act.[5] The Tribunal may also take into account: the conclusions of Queensland Health and the Queensland Public Service Commission; and Dr Golus’ admissions that his conduct was contrary to the Queensland Health Code of Conduct, the APS Code of Ethics and constituted sexual harassment for the purposes of the E5 – Sexual Harassment, Human Resources Policy.[6]
  2. [34]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that the sanction proposed by the parties falls within the permissible range. It will make orders accordingly, with the exception that the condition proposed in paragraph 4(a) will not be imposed it having already been satisfied.
  3. [35]
    Under s 242(3)(a) of the Disciplinary Proceedings Act, if the Tribunal imposes conditions on the registrant’s registration, the Tribunal must state a period within which the registrant may not apply for a review of the decision by the Tribunal under Part 9, Division 4 of the Act. Such an order is not included in the jointly proposed sanction.
  4. [36]
    A review period of 18 months is appropriate.

Costs

  1. [37]
    The Board submits that each party bears its own costs of the investigation and the proceeding. The Tribunal will make no order as to costs.

Non-publication order

  1. [38]
    The parties submit that it is appropriate, pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), for the Tribunal to make an order prohibiting the publication of any information that may enable the junior administrative officer to be identified.
  2. [39]
    In response to the considerations provided in s 66(2) of the QCAT Act, the Board submits that:
    1. (1)
      It is the registrant who is the subject of these disciplinary proceedings;
    2. (2)
      The junior administrative officer has done no wrong and is not the complainant in these proceedings;
    3. (3)
      The Board received the complaint from Queensland Health and that complaint did not identify the junior administrative officer by name;
    4. (4)
      It understands that Queensland Health’s investigation into the incident was done in the public interest and under the protections of Whistleblower legislation;
    5. (5)
      The junior administrative officer has previously indicated to Queensland Health that she did not want to take the matter further; and
    6. (6)
      Queensland Health have acknowledged that the duty of care it owes to the junior administrative officer includes respecting her wishes and taking into account her vulnerabilities.
  3. [40]
    It is appropriate to make an order under s 66 of the QCAT Act in this case prohibiting the publication of the contents of a document or other thing produced to the Tribunal, evidence before the Tribunal or information before the Tribunal that may enable the identification of the junior administrative officer.

Footnotes

[1]  Disciplinary Proceedings Act s 250.

[2]  Disciplinary Proceedings Act ss 240(2), (5).

[3]  The Queensland Health Code of Conduct provides that a possible consequence of a breach includes disciplinary processes, but lesser consequences may arise from a breach with out disciplinary processes necessarily commencing.

[4]  [2013] QCAT 376 at [91].

[5]  Disciplinary Proceedings Act s 244(1).

[6]  Disciplinary Proceedings Act s 244(3).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Psychologist Board of Australia v Golus

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Psychologist Board of Australia v Golus

  • MNC:

    [2015] QCAT 12

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Horneman-Wren DP

  • Date:

    19 Jan 2015

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 376
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 376

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Aziz v Medical Board of Australia [2015] QCAT 992 citations
Hermann v Medical Board of Australia (No 1) [2023] QCAT 591 citation
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Jattan [2015] QCAT 2941 citation
Sharma v Medical Board of Australia [2015] QCAT 861 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.