Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2018
  4. Medical Board of Australia v RTF - [2018] QCAT 323

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

Medical Board of Australia v RTF[2018] QCAT 323

Medical Board of Australia v RTF[2018] QCAT 323

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Medical Board of Australia v RTF [2018] QCAT 323

PARTIES:

MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA

(applicant)

v

DR RTF

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR240-16

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

3 October 2018

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2018, 18 September 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Sheridan, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Dr J Black

Dr H Moudgil

Mr M Halliday

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

2. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the following conditions be imposed:

  1. (a)
    The practitioner must be mentored by another registered health practitioner in relation to maintaining professional boundaries and identifying conflicts for a minimum period of 12 months.
  2. (b)
    The mentoring must comprise a minimum of 12 sessions with each session being of one hour duration occurring over a 12 month period.
  3. (c)
    Within 21 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the practitioner must, on the approved form, nominate a person(s) to be approved by the Board to act as mentor.  The practitioner must ensure that the nomination is accompanied by acknowledgment, on the approved form, from the nominated person.
  4. (d)
    Within 21 days of the notice of imposition of these conditions, the practitioner must provide to AHPRA, on the approved form, acknowledgment that AHPRA may seek reports from the approved mentor on any or all of the following occasions:
    1. every three months;
    2. at the conclusion of the mentoring relationship in order to confirm the outcomes of the mentoring;
    3. whenever the mentor has a concern or becomes aware of a concern regarding the practitioner’s conduct or professional performance; and
    4. when otherwise requested by AHPRA or the Board.
  5. (e)
    Within 28 days of receipt of the nomination, or any renomination if one becomes necessary, the Board must notify the practitioner of its decision in relation to the nominated mentor.
  6. (f)
    In the event an approved mentor is no longer willing or able to provide the mentoring required the practitioner is to provide a new nomination in the same terms as previous nominations.  Such nomination must be made by the practitioner within 14 days of becoming aware of the termination of the mentoring relationship.
  7. (g)
    Within 28 days of the conclusion of the mentoring the practitioner must provide a report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to the condition requiring they attend for mentoring and outlining how the practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the mentoring into their practise.
  8. (h)
    The costs of compliance with the conditions are to be borne by the practitioner.

4. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the review period for the conditions is 12 months from the date hereof.

5. Part 7, Division 11, subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) applies to the conditions.

6.  No order as to costs. 

7. The tribunal notes that orders were made by the tribunal on 25 January 2017 and 18 September 2018 prohibiting the publication of material that could identify or lead to the identification of the patient and/or the respondent, except as required by s 222 and s 225 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).  These reasons have been de-identified in compliance with those non-publication orders.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS – where respondent psychiatrist engaged in a personal relationship with a patient – where respondent experienced unique and extreme personal circumstances at the time of the relevant conduct – where respondent initially gave dishonest responses during the investigation – where respondent subsequently made full admissions and fully cooperated in the investigation and proceedings – where respondent admitted professional misconduct – where respondent had been subject to conditions following immediate action – where a statement of agreed facts and joint proposal on sanction are submitted – whether the sanction is appropriate

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) s 5, s 193(1)(a), s 196(1)(b)(iii), s 196(2), s 196(2)(a), s 196(2)(b), s 196(3)

Dental Board of Queensland v B [2003] QCA 294

Medical Board of Australia v Nandam [2011] QCAT 65

Medical Board of Queensland v Persley [2009] QHPT 1

Medical Board of Queensland v Persley [2012] QCAT 479

Medical Board of Australia v Jones [2012] QCAT 362

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Tainton [2014] QCAT 161

Psychology Board of Australia v Duangpatra [2012] QCAT 514

Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

C Wilson, instructed by Moray & Agnew Lawyers

Respondent:

C Hartigan, instructed by Meridian Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Referral

  1. [2]
    On 13 December 2016 the Medical Board of Australia (Board) referred to the Tribunal disciplinary proceedings against the respondent psychiatrist pursuant to s 193(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law).
  2. [3]
    The grounds for the referral to the tribunal were that the respondent had engaged in, maintained and/or furthered an inappropriate personal and/or intimate relationship with a patient (patient), for the period between September 2012 and March 2015, and that the respondent had engaged in dishonest and/or misleading behaviour by providing or attempting to provide false and/or misleading information to AHPRA and the Board.[1]  The original referral was amended on 15 December 2017 to remove the allegation of an intimate relationship, to change the period of the relationship from having commenced in September 2012 to having commenced in November/December 2012 and to add an allegation of a lack of candour to the allegation of dishonest and/or misleading behaviour (the Referral).[2]
  3. [4]
    The respondent admits the allegations in the Referral, and concedes that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct.  The matter has proceeded before the Tribunal by way of a statement of agreed facts and an agreed position as to sanction;  though with each party filing separate submissions in support of the agreed position.
  4. [5]
    In their statement of agreed facts, the parties submitted the appropriate orders to be made by the tribunal were:
    1. (a)
      there be a finding of professional misconduct;
    2. (b)
      the respondent be suspended for a period of four months;
    3. (c)
      mentoring conditions be imposed on the respondent’s registration following the period of suspension.[3]
  5. [6]
    The parties did not seek an order as to costs.
  6. [7]
    At the parties’ request, the matter initially proceeded before the Tribunal on 13 March 2018 by way of a hearing on the papers.  Subsequent to that hearing, at the request of the Tribunal, the matter was listed for an oral hearing.  The Tribunal indicated that it wished to hear further from the parties in relation to sanction.  In particular, the Tribunal indicated that it was concerned as to whether the proposed sanction of a four month suspension is excessive, and whether, in view of the Respondent’s diagnosis, there is a need for ongoing monitoring conditions.
  7. [8]
    In reconvening the Tribunal, it was necessary for the tribunal to be reconstituted, as the terms of two assessors had since expired.[4]

Background

  1. [9]
    The respondent holds general registration as a medical practitioner and specialist registration in psychiatry, having completed psychiatry training in 2011.[5]  Prior to moving to a regional town, the respondent had worked for two years as a senior registrar at a private hospital providing mental health services in a capital city.  The respondent commenced employment as a clinical psychiatrist in an inpatient setting at a clinic in a regional town (the Clinic) in August 2011, and later in an outpatient setting at a different clinic in the same town in August 2012.
  2. [10]
    On 19 July 2012, the respondent’s clinical supervisor at the Clinic referred the patient to the respondent.[6]  Between 19 July 2012 and 25 October 2012, the respondent provided psychiatric treatment to the patient.
  3. [11]
    The patient had a history of psychiatric illness.  The patient had been diagnosed with illnesses including bipolar affective disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as alcohol and cannabis abuse.[7] 
  4. [12]
    The respondent assessed the patient as, at that time, suffering from severe depression, prominent neuro-vegetative features, auditory hallucinations and paranoia.[8] 
  5. [13]
    On 25 October 2012, the respondent referred the patient back to the referring doctor for ongoing psychiatric care, stating that it had come to the respondent’s attention “that socially [the patient] and a very close friend of mine … had engaged in a relationship”.  The respondent stated: “Whilst I do not recall [the patient], we both remain in contact with this friend.  In order to maintain professional boundaries, I feel I cannot continue in the role of treating psychiatrist.” [9]

Impairment and suspension

  1. [14]
    The respondent’s personal circumstances are relevant to the context within which the conduct the subject of the Referral occurred.
  2. [15]
    On 7 November 2012, two weeks after ceasing the therapeutic relationship with the patient, the respondent was admitted to a clinic under the care of a treating psychiatrist.  The respondent was diagnosed with mixed affective state following a hypomanic episode and was commenced on mood stabilisers.[10] 
  3. [16]
    On 8 November 2012, the respondent’s accreditation at both the Clinic and the private hospital in the regional town were suspended. 
  4. [17]
    It was shortly after this event that the relationship between the respondent and the patient commenced.[11]

The first notification

  1. [18]
    On 5 December 2012, the Board provided the respondent with a notice of proposed immediate action, arising from a notification to the Board in relation to the respondent’s mental health, and included an allegation that the respondent had engaged in conduct constituting a boundary violation with the patient (the first notification). 
  2. [19]
    On 12 December 2012, the respondent gave an undertaking to the Board not to practise until permitted, and on 24 December 2012, the Board took immediate action against the respondent, accepting the respondent’s undertaking of 12 December 2012 and requiring the respondent attend for a health assessment.  In the letter of 24 December 2012, the Board made no finding in relation to any allegation of a boundary violation;  it simply noted the respondent’s denial of engagement in “any willing physical or sexual contact with the patient”.[12]
  3. [20]
    In accordance with a requirement that the respondent attend for a health assessment, the respondent attended upon consultant psychiatrist Dr Sue Splatt for a determination as to whether the practitioner was impaired.  After interviewing the respondent on 22 January 2013, Dr Splatt produced a report dated 5 February 2013, recording the history of the respondent relevant to the complaint. Dr Splatt records that after the respondent and the respondent’s family relocated to the regional town for a fresh start in June 2012, and on the day they moved, the respondent’s best friend died suddenly of a heart attack.  By September 2012, the respondent’s marriage had broken down and the respondent was left with the care of the two children from the marriage.  The respondent began to drink nightly.  During this period, the respondent was working 12 to 14 hour days.[13]   The respondent also had a history of past psychiatric illness;  in 2005/6, the respondent was hospitalised for 17 weeks for a mental health condition, and, prior to that, during a rural rotation as a medical student, had experienced the first major depressive episode.
  4. [21]
    In her report, Dr Splatt diagnosed the respondent as “impaired with a major mental illness, namely Bipolar Disorder which will require long term treatment and follow up due to the remitting, relapsing nature of the illness.”[14]  She considered that the respondent would be able to return to practise but would need to work under supervision, receive regular treatment with a psychiatrist, be monitored for alcohol abuse and work in a Board approved position, subject to restricted hours.
  5. [22]
    By letter dated 21 August 2013, the respondent was notified of the Board decision to revoke the undertaking not to practise and to impose conditions.  The conditions would enable a return to practise while providing monitoring of the respondent (the August 2013 conditions).[15] 
  6. [23]
    The respondent began to practise again in December 2013, initially in a capital city.  The respondent returned to practise in the same regional town in March 2014.[16]   
  7. [24]
    The Board removed the August 2013 conditions on 20 July 2016.[17]

The second notification

  1. [25]
    On 22 August 2013, a further notification to the Board was made by the CEO of the Clinic where the respondent had previously worked.  It was alleged by the CEO that the practitioner was continuing to engage in a close relationship with the patient (the second notification).[18]
  2. [26]
    On 19 September 2013, the committee of the Board commenced an investigation into whether the respondent had engaged in conduct constituting a boundary violation.[19] This investigation ultimately led to the matter being referred to this Tribunal.
  3. [27]
    The parties accept that, for the purposes of the Referral, the respondent was impaired from November 2012 to February 2013.[20]  

The conduct

  1. [28]
    The relevant conduct of the respondent the subject of the Referral can be categorised as:
    1. (a)
      failing to maintain professional boundaries in relation to the patient; and
    2. (b)
      engaging in misleading and/or dishonest behaviour towards AHPRA and the Board and failing to be candid and frank in dealings with AHPRA.

The relationship with the patient

  1. [29]
    It is accepted by the parties that the patient and the respondent first met when the respondent was living in a capital city in the 1990s during the respondent’s late teenage years and, at the time, the respondent and friends of the respondent had some social interaction with the patient.  After this initial period, the patient and the respondent had no contact until the patient was referred to the respondent.[21]
  2. [30]
    At the time the treating relationship commenced, it is not suggested the respondent and the patient had a close personal relationship.  It is the position of the parties that the relationship began in November 2012, after the respondent ceased treating the patient and at a time when it is agreed that the respondent was impaired. 
  3. [31]
    The Board has alleged, and the respondent accepts, that it is the continuation of the relationship after the respondent recovered from the impairment in around February 2013 that constitutes the conduct pursued by the Board for the purposes of these proceedings.[22]  It is accepted by the parties that the relationship continued until around March 2015.[23] 
  4. [32]
    The Referral described the relationship as being an “inappropriate personal relationship”.  The relevant features of the relationship were particularised in the Referral as:
    1. (a)
      the respondent provided personal and/or emotional support to the patient;
    2. (b)
      the patient provided personal and/or emotional support to the respondent;
    3. (c)
      the respondent met and had contact with the patient’s mother, daughter, son and friends;
    4. (d)
      the patient helped the respondent and the respondent’s mother with their gardening;
    5. (e)
      between July and August 2013, the respondent:
      1. allowed the patient’s daughter and the daughter’s boyfriend to stay at [the respondent’s] residence;
      2. allowed the patient’s daughter to borrow [the respondent’s] personal vehicle;
    6. (f)
      on or about 20 December 2013, the respondent added the patient’s daughter on Facebook;
    7. (g)
      between December 2013 to February 2014, the respondent allowed the patient to reside at [the respondent’s] residence at a time when the respondent was in [a capital city];
    8. (h)
      between November 2012 and September 2015, the respondent engaged in extensive telephone/SMS contact with the patient in the course of the platonic friendship.[24]
  5. [33]
    The Board did not pursue before the Tribunal the initial allegations of the relationship having sexual and/or intimate features.  However, those allegations had formed the central focus of the Board’s investigations.[25]  The respondent accepted the conduct detailed nevertheless constituted an inappropriate personal relationship with a patient.[26]  
  6. [34]
    The respondent conceded that the personal relationship with the patient began within an inappropriate time after the therapeutic relationship had ceased, and in circumstances where the respondent understood that the patient was vulnerable.[27]
  7. [35]
    It should be noted that the Referral did not arise from a complaint by the patient.  

The dishonest and/or misleading behaviour and failure to be frank and candid with AHPRA

  1. [36]
    The respondent’s dishonest and/or misleading behaviour occurred during a telephone call with an AHPRA investigator on 29 August 2014.  The respondent’s failure to be frank and candid with AHPRA relates to statements made in the telephone call, in a statutory declaration dated 22 November 2014 and in statements made during an interview with AHPRA investigators on 19 March 2015.
  2. [37]
    The dishonest and/or misleading conduct is particularised in the Referral as:

On 29 August 2014, in a telephone discussion with an AHPRA Investigation Officer, the respondent advised the AHPRA investigator with words to the effect that [the respondent]:

  1. (a)
    inadvertently bumped into the patient on a number of occasions; and
  1. (b)
    had just waved or said hello only.[28]
  1. [38]
    Such failure is also described as a particular of the respondent’s lack of candour.  The lack of candour is further particularised in the Referral as:

On 22 November 2014 and 19 March 2015, in an interview with AHPRA investigators and [the respondent’s] solicitor, the Respondent failed to accurately describe the true nature and/or extent of [the respondent’s] relationship with the patient and/or contact with the patient.[29]

  1. [39]
    The Board says that it was not until the interview with AHPRA investigators on 19 March 2015 that the respondent revealed the true extent of the relationship with the patient.  In the Board’s submissions, it is said that the falsity of the respondent’s statements were eventually admitted when the respondent was presented with “incontrovertible evidence to the contrary”.[30]  That position is not necessarily accepted by the respondent. 
  2. [40]
    In the Board’s submissions it is said that, as is evident from the respondent’s admissions, the extent of the respondent’s relationship with the patient was greater than that represented to AHPRA investigators.  The respondent admits that the representations made in the telephone call did not provide a true description of the personal relationship with the patient and admits the representations were false and misleading. 
  3. [41]
    In the submissions of the respondent, it is said, however, that the phone call with the AHPRA investigator had occurred while the respondent was at work and in between patients.  The respondent says the call lacked formality, was not pre-arranged and was at a stage of the investigation when it was still being alleged that the respondent had been involved in an intimate, sexual relationship with the patient.  It is further submitted that such an allegation is far more serious in nature than the respondent’s admitted conduct of a platonic relationship where the respondent and patient gave to each other personal and/or emotional support.  The submissions made on behalf of the respondent refer to the giving of “support to each other in the context of their medical conditions”.[31]
  4. [42]
    In terms of the statutory declaration dated 22 November 2014 and the interview on 19 March 2015, the respondent admits there was a failure to be frank and candid.  That position was accepted by the Board and the Board did not allege in the Referral that the statements made on those occasions were misleading.
  5. [43]
    Despite the admissions made by the respondent at the interview in March 2015, the Board continued to maintain that the relationship had a feature of intimacy.  It was not until the amendments to the referral in December 2017 that the reference to intimacy was removed.
  6. [44]
    Appropriately, in the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent, the seriousness of the behaviour is acknowledged and the fact that such behaviour was wrong is admitted. 

Characterisation of the conduct

  1. [45]
    The Board says the conduct of the respondent amounts to professional misconduct as defined under s 5 of the National Law.  Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition are defined by reference to unprofessional conduct and sub-paragraph (c) defines the term as being conduct inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration.  The latter category is the most serious and any finding in that regard would result in the cancellation of the practitioner’s registration.
  2. [46]
    Notwithstanding the amendment of the referral in December 2017, the Referral continued to allege the conduct could fall within all three categories.  It was not until the filing of the submissions on behalf of the Board in January 2018 that it was said the conduct fell within either sub-paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of s 5.  There is no suggestion in the submissions that the respondent was not a fit and proper person within sub-paragraph (c).  There can be no doubt the facts of this case would not support an allegation that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to remain registered.
  3. [47]
    The respondent accepts that the admitted conduct falls within the definition of professional misconduct.
  4. [48]
    The Tribunal finds that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct.

Approach to sanction

  1. [49]
    Having found that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct, in accordance with s 196(2) of the National Law, the Tribunal must decide the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  When addressing sanction, the tribunal must approach each case afresh and consider the particular circumstances of the case before it.[32]
  2. [50]
    The parties have proposed an agreed sanction comprising a four-month period of suspension and the imposition of conditions on the registration of the respondent upon returning to practise.  The conditions were directed to mentoring in relation to maintaining professional boundaries and identifying conflicts for a minimum period of 12 months.
  3. [51]
    The determination of sanction in disciplinary proceedings remains a discretionary matter for the tribunal, notwithstanding any agreement between parties.[33]   Nevertheless, where parties have reached an agreed position that agreement should only be disturbed if it “falls outside the permissible range of sanction for the conduct”.[34]
  4. [52]
    In determining whether the sanction is appropriate or within the permissible range, the Tribunal has been guided by a panel of three assessors, whose function it is to sit with the tribunal and advice the tribunal about questions of fact.  The importance of the role of the assessors in guiding the Tribunal should not be underestimated.  In Dental Board of Queensland v B,[35] the Court of Appeal accepted as correct the submissions that the presence of the assessors was important in relation to matters of fact affecting a finding of professional misconduct and also with respect to sanction. As Fryberg J commented, “The assessors’ assistance on the question of sanction is not a marginal matter.  In all but the most extraordinary case their assistance will be important to the Tribunal’s decision.  It is assistance given from the perspective of the profession and the public.”[36]  Although this proceeding is under a different act, the section in relation to the functions of assessor are in very similar terms.
  5. [53]
    The paramount guiding principle for administering the National Law is that the health and safety of the public are paramount.[37]  The purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is protective, not punitive.[38]
  6. [54]
    Protection of the public is not limited to protecting the patients or potential patients of a particular practitioner but includes protecting the public from the similar misconduct or incompetence of other practitioners and upholding public confidence in the standards of the profession.  It is accepted that denouncing such misconduct operates as a deterrent to the individual concerned, as well as to the general body of practitioners.[39] 
  7. [55]
    Central to any determination of sanction must be an assessment of whether the practitioner presents an ongoing risk to the public of similar misconduct.  The degree of insight, and any evidence of rehabilitation, demonstrated by the practitioner will be relevant.[40]  The tribunal may also assess whether the practitioner possesses special skills which it would be desirable to make available to the public.[41]
  8. [56]
    An assessment of “other matters which may be regarded as aggravating the conduct or mitigating seriousness”[42] will also need to be undertaken by the tribunal.[43]
  9. [57]
    In making submissions as to sanction, the Board referred to the vulnerability of the patient, the power imbalance and the impact on the patient; all of which it was submitted were aggravating circumstances.  It was agreed by the parties that, by virtue of the patient’s status as a former patient of the respondent, in conjunction with the fact that the patient was, at the relevant time, suffering from mental illness, had a history of mental illness, and was experiencing difficult personal circumstances, the patient was vulnerable.[44]  
  10. [58]
    Further, the Board submitted that the power imbalance inherent in the therapeutic relationship between psychiatrist and patient is an aggravating factor to be taken into account by the Tribunal.[45]
  11. [59]
    The Board also submitted that a further aggravating feature was the impact of the boundary violation on the patient.  The Board referred to comments made in the respondent’s interview with AHPRA on 15 March 2015, in which the respondent stated that the patient:

…was very upset about what had happened in terms of the events that led to my notification originally and […] was calling me and texting me a lot to apologise, is there anything […] can do, you know, […] was really sorry.[46]

  1. [60]
    The Board submitted that this was evidence that the patient was negatively impacted insofar as the patient apparently had feelings of guilt and remorse.[47]
  2. [61]
    The Tribunal does not accept that submission.  There is no direct evidence from the patient in these proceedings on this point and no complaint was ever made by the patient to the Board or anyone else. 
  3. [62]
    The Tribunal accepts, however, that the maintenance of the personal relationship from November 2013 to March 2015 did have the potential to harm the patient.
  4. [63]
    Further, in disciplinary proceedings involving a breach of professional boundaries, deception of the regulator is treated as a serious aggravation of the overall misconduct.[48]  
  5. [64]
    The making of false statements to AHPRA should be viewed seriously.  However, the making of such statements in the phone call must be viewed in context, both as to the manner in which the call was made to the respondent while at work and in between consultations with patients and at a time when the central focus of the investigation was the allegation of a relationship having sexual and intimate features.
  6. [65]
    That focus continued and the allegations that the respondent had failed to be frank and candid with the Board in the statutory declaration dated 22 November 2014 and the interview with an AHPRA investigator on 15 March 2015 must also be considered in that light.  Consistent with the position being maintained by the regulator, the original referral filed in the Tribunal in December 2016 included an allegation of an intimate relationship between the respondent and the patient.
  7. [66]
    This fact does not excuse the respondent’s behaviour but it does put it in context.  In reviewing the transcript of the interview, there is no doubt the respondent downplayed the extent of the communication ongoing between the respondent and the patient at around this time.  However, it is accepted that, in the course of that interview, the respondent appropriately acknowledged the true extent of the respondent’s relationship with the patient.
  8. [67]
    Further, whilst there may have been initial non-cooperation with AHPRA, it cannot be said that attitude prevailed throughout the entirety of the investigation, despite the regulator being slow to drop the allegation of intimacy, and relevantly, the suggestion that the misconduct meant that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to be registered.
  9. [68]
    Significant steps have been taken by the respondent to change the respondent’s practice to ensure in future the maintenance of professional boundaries.  Whilst the respondent’s initial non-cooperation may have demonstrated a lack of insight, the respondent’s subsequent behaviour has shown a continuously developing level of insight.  It could not be said that, at the time at which the proceedings were heard, the Tribunal could entertain any doubts as to the real depth of insight.
  10. [69]
    In assessing insight and remorse, the Tribunal was referred to the significant efforts made by the respondent to change the respondent’s method of work and to undertake professional development.  The submissions filed on behalf of the respondent refer in some detail to the steps taken by the respondent. 
  11. [70]
    In line with recommendations made by Dr Splatt, following the health assessment of the respondent, the respondent now only sees patients three days per week from 9 am to 3 pm and spends the remaining two days writing medical reports, which equates to roughly 30 hours work per week. 
  12. [71]
    The respondent now works in a practice with other medical practitioners in a supportive and collegiate environment.  The practice principal is aware of these proceedings.  The medical records of the respondent’s patients may be accessed by all practice staff, meaning that the respondent’s care is subject to a higher degree of transparency than working as a sole practitioner.  The respondent shares the care of patients with others in the practice, which relieves the respondent of the stressors involved in operating a stand-alone private practice.   The respondent participates in GP Peer Group once per month to discuss complex cases and quarterly mental health practitioner meetings, ensuring that the respondent is not professionally isolated.  The respondent engages with senior colleagues for guidance on how to manage difficult patients.
  13. [72]
    The submissions refer to the respondent having engaged with a local psychologist to discuss practice structure and time management strategies;  having attended numerous sessions with a psychoanalyst for clinical boundary mentoring purposes;  and having undertaken significant training with Carramar Consulting, focusing on the area of professional boundaries.   
  14. [73]
    The respondent continues to consult with the respondent’s long-term treating psychiatrist.
  15. [74]
    Furthermore, the respondent has been appointed by the Board to act as a supervisor in relation to the practice of other medical practitioners in the regional area where the respondent practices.[49]  Such an appointment must reflect the level of trust which the Board is prepared to place in the respondent.
  16. [75]
    The Tribunal accepts that the respondent has undertaken significant steps to address the issues raised by these proceedings.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent has developed insight not only into the offending conduct but the effect that the respondent’s mental illness can have upon the respondent’s judgment and the respondent’s method of practice. The respondent appears to have developed coping mechanisms to deal with the respondent’s diagnosis. The changes made by the respondent give the Tribunal significant comfort in terms of the risk of similar behaviour occurring in the future. 
  17. [76]
    The respondent is now surrounded by a support network and the Tribunal accepts, as submitted by the parties, that it is not necessary to impose any additional layer of monitoring.  The respondent also has an ongoing therapeutic relationship with the treating psychiatrist.
  18. [77]
    It is also of relevance that at no time did the treating relationship overlap with the personal relationship.  The relationship has relevantly been described as “a platonic relationship”,[50] and there is no material before the Tribunal that the patient has been harmed in any way as a result of the relationship;  though it is recognised there was always the potential for harm.
  19. [78]
    The Tribunal notes that the agreed position of the parties is that the respondent should not be considered to be impaired after February 2013, the date of the report of Dr Splatt.  It is said, after that date, the respondent must take full responsibility for the continuance of the relationship with the patient.  However, it is relevant, as was observed by Dr Splatt, that the alleged boundary violation began in the context of the respondent’s “hypomanic episode”. 
  20. [79]
    Further, despite it being agreed the impairment ended in February 2013, the respondent continued to be subjected to an undertaking not to practice until the Board decision of 7 August 2013 and, in fact, the respondent did not commence to practice again until December 2013.  At the oral hearing, the Board submitted that the Tribunal could not take account of the period of non-practice between February 2013 and December 2013 for the purpose of the misconduct proceedings.  It was said that period related to the respondent’s impairment and that the Tribunal has no evidence in relation to that period.[51]
  21. [80]
    It is true the Tribunal has no evidence as to the delay between February 2013 and August 2013 in revoking the respondent’s undertaking not to practice.  On behalf of the respondent, in oral submissions, counsel adverted to the fact that once the undertaking was revoked in August 2013, given the period the respondent had been out of practice, the respondent took until December 2013 to find work.[52]  The Tribunal accepts, as was submitted, that it is not appropriate to treat that period of non-practice as if the respondent had been penalised in any respect in relation to the misconduct the subject of these proceedings.

Comparative cases

  1. [81]
    The parties drew the tribunal’s attention to a number of cases in support of their joint proposed sanction. 
  2. [82]
    The Board referred to the cases of the Duangpatra[53] and the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Tainton.[54] 
  3. [83]
    Duangpatra involved a prison-based psychologist who was suspended for six months, with the suspension being suspended after three.  The inappropriate relationship commenced within two weeks of the cessation of the therapeutic relationship. 
  4. [84]
    The Board submitted this case was the most useful comparative insofar as there was no sexual element to the relationship in Duangpatra, the patient involved was vulnerable, and the inappropriate personal relationship commenced within an inappropriate time after the cessation of the therapeutic relationship.  The difference, however, is that in Duangpatra, the correspondence exchanged and discussions between the psychologist and patient were affectionate and sometimes intimate in nature.  They were recorded discussing having children with one another and expressing frustration at not being able to “kiss” or “make love” to one another.[55]  The nature of the relationship in Duangpatra is clearly different to the relationship in the current proceedings.  It is not alleged as part of the Referral here that the relationship between the respondent and the patient was intimate in nature.
  5. [85]
    The practitioner in that case, whilst acknowledging that she was in breach of the code of ethics in developing a personal relationship with her patient, stated that trauma in her own life, as well as her limited professional experience, had made her vulnerable to manipulation by the patient and had contributed to her conduct.  It is not suggested that the practitioner was impaired.  The tribunal found that the practitioner, by her comments, was excusing her behaviour.  The tribunal found that whilst the practitioner had gained some insight into her behaviour after attending counselling, her insight was not fully developed.  The Board attempted to draw a parallel between the practitioner’s limited insight in that case and in the case of the respondent. Given the extensive measures which have been taken by the respondent, it cannot be said that the respondent continues to exhibit any lack of insight into both the behaviour the subject of the Referral and the management of the respondent’s health condition.
  6. [86]
    Duangpatra is not particularly instructive, except insofar as it provides some instruction as to the appropriate range of suspension in boundary violation cases. 
  7. [87]
    Tainton involved professional misconduct proceedings against a prison-based nurse.  She had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a patient who she had seen informally on one occasion.  Whilst it was described as “platonic” in the agreed statement of facts, the exchanges indicated expressions of affection and love.  The tribunal found that the case was not at the “serious end of such cases” involving professional misconduct.[56]  It was accepted by the tribunal in that case that the practitioner was vulnerable as she was separating from a difficult 12-year relationship.  It was found that there was no reason that there would be any recurrence of similar conduct in the future.[57]  She had also shown genuine remorse and insight into her behaviour.  The relationship consisted of 31 phone calls and the exchange of five letters. 
  8. [88]
    The Board referred that case to this Tribunal on the basis that the practitioner had been suspended for a period of three months; however, it was not that simple.  The practitioner had voluntarily relinquished her registration and had not practised for two years, which, at the time of the decision, had been “partly spun out by reason to the leisurely pace at which proceedings were conducted”.[58]  
  9. [89]
    The board in that case sought that the practitioner be reprimanded, excluded from reapplication for 12 months, attend further education and counselling and be subject to indirect supervision upon reregistration for a period of 12 months, as well as an order for costs and the imposition of an obligation on future employers to submit records regarding her fitness and competency.  It further sought that she be prohibited from working in a corrective services facility.
  10. [90]
    The tribunal found that there was no subsisting registration upon which the conditions sought could be applied, and stated that, even if the tribunal had jurisdiction, the proposed conditions “even if capable of imposition, would be unnecessary or unduly oppressive”.[59]  Given the nature of the conduct involved, in addition to the fact that she had already relinquished her registration for more than two years, the tribunal found that the appropriate sanction would be that the practitioner be reprimanded and disqualified her from applying for registration as a registered nurse for three months from the date of its decision.
  11. [91]
    In addition to the case of Duangpatra, the respondent’s legal representatives referred the Tribunal to the cases of Medical Board of Australia v Nandam,[60]Medical Board of Queensland v Persley[61] and Medical Board of Australia v Jones.[62]
  12. [92]
    Nandam was cited as relevant on the basis that the practitioner in that case was suspended for a period of five months.  In fact, the practitioner was suspended for three months, to be suspended after one month subject to their compliance with certain conditions for a period of two years.[63]  Dr Nandam was a medical practitioner who commenced and maintained a sexual relationship with a patient for a period of nine months.  At the time of the commencement of the relationship, both Dr Nandam and the patient were suffering from mental health conditions.  In particular, the tribunal commented that Dr Nandam was aware of the patient’s personal circumstances “which meant she was more vulnerable than another patient might have been”.[64]
  13. [93]
    The case should be distinguished from the respondent’s conduct on the basis that the relationship in Nandam was sexual in nature, which is significantly more serious.  There is some relevance insofar as both the respondent and Dr Nandam were experiencing mental health issues at the commencement of the relationship.  In Dr Nandam’s case, the practitioner’s mental health conditions were said to provide “a significant degree of explanation for his behaviour”.[65]  In the present case, the respondent’s mental health condition at the commencement of the relationship with the patient cannot be ignored in giving context to the misconduct.  In contrast to Nandam, the relevant relationship here, however, occurred after the treating relationship had ended. Further, in Nandam the patient suffered as a consequence of the relationship,[66] whereas here, there is no evidence of any harm to the patient.
  14. [94]
    Persley involved a sexual relationship between a psychiatrist and a patient.  The relationship commenced after his treatment ceased, and continued on a sporadic basis for a period of nine years.  The patient complained about his conduct.[67]  In the patient’s affidavit, she stated that the relationship had caused her “feelings of ‘guilt, rejection, loss, fear and general anxiety’”, and she talked of suicide.[68] The effect on the complainant of the relationship was such that she felt she could no longer trust male doctors, or people in general;  she stated it had affected her relationship with others.[69]  The registrant himself was experiencing considerable personal problems, including frustration, suicidal thoughts, tension and anxiety.[70]  The tribunal found that he exhibited genuine remorse for his conduct.  The reasons in that case indicate that the practitioner was suspended for a period of three months with conditions;  not five months as posited in the respondent’s submissions.[71]  
  15. [95]
    Again, the case is of limited assistance to this Tribunal, except insofar as it highlights the seriousness with which the tribunal views boundary violation cases involving psychiatrists.[72]
  16. [96]
    Jones concerned a medical practitioner who commenced a sexual relationship within an inappropriate time after the treating relationship ceased.  Dr Jones met the patient in circumstances where she was working as a registered nurse at a retirement home that he occasionally attended in the course of his work.  He commenced treating the patient after they had worked together.  The personal relationship developed towards the end of an 18-month treatment period.  The circumstances in that case were such that the patient and her husband were experiencing marital problems, which the patient had confided in the doctor early in the therapeutic relationship.  The defendant doctor then began treating the patient’s husband.  In circumstances where the doctor was aware of their personal circumstances and vulnerabilities, and had subsequently entered into an inappropriate relationship with the patient, the tribunal found that he had failed in his professional responsibilities to each of them.[73] 
  17. [97]
    The facts of that case are clearly quite different to those at hand.  The patient’s trust in medical practitioners had been affected, and she gave evidence that she felt Dr Jones had manipulated his position of authority.  The doctor and patient in that case experienced a significantly more intimate relationship than in the current case;  Dr Jones and the patient lived together for a period;  he had disclosed the relationship with his wife;  and the tribunal accepted that he had genuine feelings for the patient.  However, the tribunal found that he had exploited the confidence of both the patient and her husband, and he was found to have engaged in conduct constituting professional misconduct.  He was suspended for six months, which suspension was itself suspended after two months upon the practitioner complying with certain conditions.
  18. [98]
    These cases are of limited assistance to the Tribunal given that they all concern inappropriate relationships with patients which involved an intimate and/or sexual element, and where, in all but two, there was incontrovertible evidence as to the damage on the patient that the conduct had. 
  19. [99]
    The respondent’s legal representatives acknowledged that the conduct of each practitioner in the above three cases is proportionately more reprehensible than the respondent’s.  There is no evidence from the patient the subject of these proceedings outlining the effect that the relationship had upon the patient, nor was any complaint made by the patient.  The Tribunal does not accept the submission of the Board that the patient was negatively impacted because of any expressed feelings of guilt or remorse because of the position the respondent was in.  Nor can it be said that there was ever an element of physical or emotional intimacy involved in the relationship. The presence of such elements would have elevated the relationship to one which could be classified as being at the higher end of such cases involving professional misconduct.

Conclusion on sanction

  1. [100]
    Whilst it is accepted that the respondent’s relationship was improper in the ways agreed by the parties, the misconduct is at the lower end of the scale.  The Tribunal accepts that the relationship was one in which both parties supported each other in their mutual struggle with their medical conditions, and a shared feeling of isolation within their community. 
  2. [101]
    Arguably the most serious element of the respondent’s misconduct was the initial dishonesty with the regulator;  however, the Tribunal believes that conduct must be put in the context of the Board pressing much more serious allegations against the respondent.  The respondent subsequently cooperated fully with the Board, and the parties were able to arrive at an agreed position such as to obviate the need for a contested hearing of the facts.
  3. [102]
    In assessing the appropriateness of the sanction proposed, the tribunal must also have regard to the exceptional mitigating circumstances.  During the time it has taken for this matter to come before the Tribunal, the respondent has completely changed the method by which the respondent’s practice is conducted;  taking into account the recommendations flowing from the independent health assessment report and ensuring the work environment is a collegiate one where the respondent is properly supported to avoid professional isolation and any likelihood of the behaviour the subject of the current proceedings ever happening again.
  4. [103]
    The Tribunal finds that the measures adopted by the respondent to rehabilitate show a very high level of insight and that the risk of future similar misconduct is extremely low.  The removal of any ongoing monitoring conditions by the Board and the submissions of the Board in these proceedings support those findings.  In these circumstances, personal deterrence is not a factor which would support the sanction proposed.
  5. [104]
    In terms of the need to deter others, the respondent’s circumstances are so unique and complicated by the interplay of the respondent’s impairment and misconduct.  Issues between the respondent and the Board around the respondent’s impairment resulted in a period of some nine months of the respondent not being allowed to practice and then a further three months before the respondent commenced working. The respondent’s impairment resulted in the respondent being closely monitored by the Board for a period of almost three years.  Whilst the Tribunal accepts that time cannot be treated in these proceedings as the respondent having been penalised, it is part of the overall factual matrix.
  6. [105]
    Ultimately, in these proceedings, the question the Tribunal needs to consider is whether the protective purpose can be met without subjecting the respondent to a further period of suspension from practice, particularly given the rehabilitative steps taken by the respondent.  The respondent has developed a completely different practice model with the necessary support systems which enable the respondent to continue the delivery of medical services to a regional centre.  If the protective purposes can be otherwise met, then the sanction proposed by the parties may not fall within the permissible range or serve the intended purpose of the disciplinary proceedings. 
  7. [106]
    With the assistance of the assessors, the Tribunal considers it is likely that the respondent’s practice and patients will be disadvantaged by a period of suspension.  At the oral hearing, counsel for the respondent referred to the fact of the respondent requiring additional time prior to the commencement of any period of suspension to ensure continuity of services to the regional centre.  It was said the respondent would require a six week period to obtain the services of a locum.
  8. [107]
    The Tribunal is not satisfied the agreed sanction of a four month period of suspension is appropriate.  The Tribunal considers, in all the circumstances, the imposition of a reprimand together with the mentoring conditions as proposed by the parties can satisfy the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.[74]  As the Tribunal has previously observed, a reprimand is not a trivial sanction;[75]  the fact of the reprimand is placed on the register of practitioners and remains there until removed by the Board.
  9. [108]
    In imposing the mentoring conditions, the Tribunal accepts the position agreed by the parties in terms of the review of the conditions and the Tribunal will make the consequential orders as proposed.
  10. [109]
    The parties have agreed that there should be no order as to costs.  Consistent with the agreement, the Tribunal will make such an order;  albeit the making of such an order is not necessary, it clearly indicates the position reached.

Orders

  1. [110]
    Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
  1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
  1. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the respondent is reprimanded.
  1. Pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of  the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the following conditions be imposed:
  1. (a)
    The practitioner must be mentored by another registered health practitioner in relation to maintaining professional boundaries and identifying conflicts for a minimum period of 12 months.
  2. (b)
    The mentoring must comprise a minimum of 12 sessions with each session being of one hour duration occurring over a 12 month period.
  3. (c)
    Within 21 days of the notice of the imposition of these conditions, the practitioner must, on the approved form, nominate a person(s) to be approved by the Board to act as mentor.  The practitioner must ensure that the nomination is accompanied by acknowledgment, on the approved form, from the nominated person.
  4. (d)
    Within 21 days of the notice of imposition of these conditions the practitioner must provide to AHPRA, on the approved form, acknowledgment that AHPRA may seek reports from the approved mentor on any or all of the following occasions:
    1. every three months;
    2. at the conclusion of the mentoring relationship in order to confirm the outcomes of the mentoring;
    3. whenever the mentor has a concern or becomes aware of a concern regarding the practitioner’s conduct or professional performance, and
    4. when otherwise requested by AHPRA or the Board.
  5. (e)
    Within 28 days of receipt of the nomination, or any renomination if one becomes necessary, the Board must notify the practitioner of its decision in relation to the nominated mentor.
  6. (f)
    In the event an approved mentor is no longer willing or able to provide the mentoring required the practitioner is to provide a new nomination in the same terms as previous nominations.  Such nomination must be made by the practitioner within 14 days of becoming aware of the termination of the mentoring relationship.
  7. (g)
    Within 28 days of the conclusion of the mentoring the practitioner must provide a report demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that the practitioner has reflected on the issues that gave rise to the condition requiring they attend for mentoring and outlining how the practitioner has incorporated the lessons learnt in the mentoring into their practise.
  8. (h)
    The costs of compliance with the conditions are to be borne by the practitioner.
  1. Pursuant to s 196(3) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the review period for the conditions is 12 months from the date hereof.
  1. Part 7, Division 11, subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) applies to the conditions.
  1. No order as to costs.
  1. The tribunal notes that orders were made by the tribunal on 25 January 2017 and 18 September 2018 prohibiting the publication of material that could identify or lead to the identification of the patient and/or the respondent, except as required by s 222 and s 225 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).  These reasons have been de-identified in compliance with those non-publication orders.

Footnotes

[1]Referral dated 13 December 2016.

[2]Further amended referral dated 15 December 2017.

[3]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [33].

[4]At the hearing held on the papers on 13 March 2018, the Tribunal was assisted by Dr J Black, Dr G Powell and Mr W Sanderson.  The terms of Dr Powell and Mr Sanderson subsequently expired.

[5]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [1]; Report of Dr Sue Splatt dated 5 February 2013.

[6]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [10].

[7]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [6].

[8]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [11].

[9]Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [9]; Letter from Dr RTF to the clinical supervisor dated 25 October 2012, hearing brief p 48.

[10]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [23(b)].

[11]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [21].

[12]Notice of decision to take immediate action dated 24 December 2012, hearing brief p 68.

[13]Report of Dr Sue Splatt dated 5 February 2013, hearing brief p 77.

[14]Ibid, hearing brief p 81.

[15]Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [14(h)].

[16]Letter from Meridian Lawyers to Moray & Agnew dated 26 May 2017, hearing brief p 236.

[17]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [23(j)].

[18]Letter from AHPRA to Dr RTF dated 15 October 2013, hearing brief p 89.

[19]Ibid, hearing brief p 86.

[20]Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [13]; Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [13].

[21]Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [22]-[23]; Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [17]; Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017 [22]-[23].

[22]Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [28]; Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [15].

[23]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [21].

[24]Further amended referral dated 15 December 2017, [29]; Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [25].

[25]Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [23]-[24].

[26]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [26].

[27]Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [19].

[28]Further amended referral dated 15 December 2017, [34]; Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [28]–[32].

[29]Further amended referral dated 15 December 2017, [34A].

[30]Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [43].

[31]Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [22] – [24].

[32]Psychology Board of Australia v Duangpatra [2012] QCAT 514, [18] (Duangpatra).

[33]See, for example, Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376 and Medical Board of Australia v Fitzgerald [2014] QCAT 425.

[34]Medical Board of Australia v Fitzgerald [2014] QCAT 425, [17].

[35][2003] QCA 294.

[36]Ibid, [26].

[37]National Law, s 3A.

[38]Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 116; NSW Bar Association v Evatt [1968] HCA 20; (1968) 117 CLR 177, 183; Medical Board of Australia v Dolar [2012] QCAT 271, [30].

[39]Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307, [35].

[40]Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163, [142].

[41]Health Care Complaints Commission v King [2013] NSWMT 9, [27].

[42]Legal Profession Complaints Committee and A Legal Practitioner [2013] WASAT 37(S), [35].

[43]Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163, [143].

[44]Statement of agreed facts dated 27 October 2017, [26(b)]; Further amended referral dated 15 December 2017, [6(f)].

[45]Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [54].

[46]Transcript of interview between A Reynolds and Dr RTF on 19 March 2015, p 4, ll154-56; Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [56].

[47]Board’s submissions on sanction dated 19 January 2018, [55]-[57].

[48]Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516, [25].

[49]Letter from Meridian Lawyers to Moray & Agnew dated 26 May 2017, hearing brief p 238.

[50]Respondent’s submissions on sanction dated 29 January 2018, [31].

[51]Transcript of Proceedings, Medical Board of Australia v RTF (Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, OCR240-16, Judge Sheridan, Dr Black, Dr Moudgil, Mr Halliday, 18 September 2018) p 1-10 (C Wilson).

[52]Ibid, p 1-21 (C Hartigan).

[53][2012] QCAT 514.

[54][2014] QCAT 161 (Tainton).

[55][2012] QCAT 514, [5].

[56][2014] QCAT 161, [28].

[57][2014] QCAT 161, [23].

[58][2014] QCAT 161, [36].

[59][2014] QCAT 161, [34].

[60][2011] QCAT 65 (Nandam).

[61][2009] QHPT 1; [2012] QCAT 479 (Persley).

[62][2012] QCAT 362 (Jones).

[63][2011] QCAT 65, [8].

[64][2011] QCAT 65, [1].

[65][2011] QCAT 65, [4].

[66][2011] QCAT 65, [6].

[67][2009] QHPT 1, [1].

[68][2009] QHPT 1, [7].

[69][2009] QHPT 1, [8].

[70][2009] QHPT 1, [10].

[71][2009] QHPT 1; [2012] QCAT 479, [3].

[72][2009] QHPT 1, [5].

[73][2012] QCAT 362, [9].

[74]The mentoring conditions proposed by the parties have been amended in very minor respects.

[75]Peeke v Medical Board of Victoria (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria Practice Court, Marks J, 19 January 1994); Medical Board of Australia v Jones [2012] QCAT 362, [14]. 

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Medical Board of Australia v RTF

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Medical Board of Australia v RTF

  • MNC:

    [2018] QCAT 323

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Sheridan DP

  • Date:

    03 Oct 2018

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
Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 116
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1960) 104 CLR 116
Dental Board of Queensland v B[2004] 1 Qd R 254; [2003] QCA 294
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QCA 294
Cite 2 - [2003] QCA 294
Cite 3 - [2003] QCA 294
Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] NSWCA 307
Health Care Complaints Commission v King [2013] NSWMT 9
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] NSWMT 9
LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and A LEGAL PRACTITIONER [2013] WASAT 37
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] WASAT 37
Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 163
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 163
Medical Board of Australia v Dolar [2012] QCAT 271
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 271
Medical Board of Australia v Fitzgerald [2014] QCAT 425
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCAT 425
Cite 2 - [2014] QCAT 425
Medical Board of Australia v Jones [2012] QCAT 362
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 362
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 362
Cite 3 - [2012] QCAT 362
Cite 4 - [2012] QCAT 362
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 376
Medical Board of Australia v Nandam [2011] QCAT 65
6 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCAT 65
Cite 2 - [2011] QCAT 65
Cite 3 - [2011] QCAT 65
Cite 4 - [2011] QCAT 65
Cite 5 - [2011] QCAT 65
Cite 6 - [2011] QCAT 65
Medical Board of Queensland v Persley [2009] QHPT 1
8 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] QHPT 1
Cite 2 - [2009] QHPT 1
Cite 3 - [2009] QHPT 1
Cite 4 - [2009] QHPT 1
Cite 5 - [2009] QHPT 1
Cite 6 - [2009] QHPT 1
Cite 7 - [2009] QHPT 1
Cite 8 - [2009] QHPT 1
New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1968) 117 CLR 177
New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) HCA 20
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1968) HCA 20
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Tainton [2014] QCAT 161
6 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCAT 161
Cite 2 - [2014] QCAT 161
Cite 3 - [2014] QCAT 161
Cite 4 - [2014] QCAT 161
Cite 5 - [2014] QCAT 161
Cite 6 - [2014] QCAT 161
Persley v Medical Board of Australia [2012] QCAT 479
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 479
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 479
Cite 3 - [2012] QCAT 479
Psychology Board of Australia v Duangpatra [2012] QCAT 514
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 514
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 514
Cite 3 - [2012] QCAT 514
Cite 4 - [2012] QCAT 514
Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCAT 516
Cite 2 - [2014] QCAT 516

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Health Ombudsman v Esser [2020] QCAT 3352 citations
Health Ombudsman v RCM [2022] QCAT 593 citations
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.