The Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Everett
[2018] QCAT 344
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- The Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Everett[2018] QCAT 344
- Add to List
The Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Everett[2018] QCAT 344
The Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Everett[2018] QCAT 344
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | The Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Everett [2018] QCAT 344 |
PARTIES: | THE NURSING & MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA (applicant) |
| v |
| TRACEY ANNE MARGARET EVERETT (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | OCR069-16 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 29 October 2018 |
HEARING DATE: | 29 November 2017 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Judge Sheridan, Acting President |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – where the respondent nurse vaccinator misappropriated vaccinations from her employer – where the vaccinations were administered to the customers of her employer in exchange for payment to the respondent by way of cash or direct deposit to the respondent’s bank account – where false cash receipts were issued in the name of her employer – where the payments received by the respondent for the vaccinations were not provided to her employer – where the respondent provided misleading information to prevent detection by her employer – where the respondent did not admit the majority of the allegations made until just prior to the tribunal hearing – where the respondent ultimately admitted professional misconduct –whether suspension or cancellation is the appropriate sanction – whether the respondent should pay the costs of the proceedings Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), s 193B, s 195, s 196 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 100, s 102, s 127 Health Ombudsman v Antley [2016] QCAT 472 HCCC v Sohler [2010] NSWNMT 18 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Bartlett [2013] VCAT 2014 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Morley [2014] SAHPT 17 Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Roos [2016] QCAT 231 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: |
|
Applicant: | C Wilson of counsel, instructed by Moray & Agnew Solicitors |
Respondent: | C Mathew of counsel, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers |
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Referral
- [1]On 26 May 2016, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (Board) referred to the Tribunal disciplinary proceedings against the registrant, Ms Tracey Everett. The referral was made pursuant to s 193B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law) on the basis that the Board had formed the reasonable belief that Ms Everett had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct.
- [2]The grounds of the referral relate to the conduct of Ms Everett whilst she was employed by Traveller’s Medical Services Pty Ltd[1] on a casual basis as a practice nurse and onsite nurse immuniser.
- [3]It is alleged that whilst working at the Travel Clinic between March and June 2011, Ms Everett administered certain vaccines, the property of the Travel Clinic, to employees of clients of the Travel Clinic and individuals and retained for herself the payments made for the vaccines administered.
- [4]For an extended period, Ms Everett did not admit to the majority of the allegations made and asserted a positive case by way of defence. Ultimately, in an amended response filed on 12 May 2017, Ms Everett admitted the factual allegations made against her and the categorisation of the misconduct, with the only issue in dispute being the sanction to be imposed.
The Facts
- [5]Whilst an employee of the Travel Clinic, Ms Everett was required to attend at the business premises of various clients of the Travel Clinic for the purpose of administering vaccinations to employees of the clients.
- [6]On various dates between 6 May and 23 June 2011, Ms Everett attended at the work places of Haymans Electrical, Abacus ALS Pty Ltd, RPS Australia East Pty Ltd, St Dympna’s School and Hotel Urban for the purpose of administering primarily influenza vaccinations to employees. While attending at these locations, Ms Everett administered to certain staff additional vaccines including Boostrix, Gardasil, Adacel and Hepatitis A & B vaccines. Ms Everett requested that payment for the additional vaccines administered to staff be made either in cash or by direct deposit into a bank account.
- [7]At the time of providing the service, Ms Everett issued a cash receipt in the name of the Travel Clinic. The cash receipts were taken from a cash receipt book, with each individual receipt stamped with the name, address and phone number of the Travel Clinic.
- [8]On one occasion, when the client required a tax invoice before making payment, Ms Everett issued the tax invoice in the name of the Travel Clinic; the tax invoice included her personal bank account details for payment. On another occasion, an employee requested from Ms Everett a receipt for the vaccinations in order to make a claim for a Medicare rebate and was told the cost of the vaccination could not be claimed through Medicare. The employee made payment on the basis of the cash receipt but requested from the Travel Clinic directly a tax invoice. The Travel Clinic provided the tax invoice, despite not having received payment.
- [9]In total, Ms Everett received the amount of $8,844.30 by way of either cash payments or direct deposits to her bank account.
- [10]On 13 July 2011, representatives of the Travel Clinic met with Ms Everett. At that meeting, Ms Everett was dismissed on the basis that she had stolen vaccinations and misappropriated payments belonging to the Travel Clinic.
- [11]At the request of the principal and the business manager of the Travel Clinic, the Queensland Police Service (QPS) attended the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the QPS escorted Ms Everett to her home and executed a search warrant. In the course of executing the search warrant, the cash receipt book was located. The cash receipt book revealed the issuing of cash receipts to clients of the Travel Clinic and/or individuals on various dates between 23 March and 22 June 2011.
- [12]Ms Everett was never formally charged with any offence in relation to the vaccinations or the alleged misappropriation of funds.
- [13]Without any admission of wrongdoing, Ms Everett subsequently entered into a payment arrangement to pay the sum of $8,844.30 to the Travel Clinic. That amount was fully repaid on or about 7 March 2012.
Previous position of the respondent
- [14]Up until the filing of the amended response on 12 May 2017, at all times since the raising of the allegations, Ms Everett had maintained her denial of the allegations. The denial was maintained throughout the AHPRA investigations and throughout these proceedings. The basis of the denial is detailed in the statement of agreed and disputed facts dated 20 December 2016 and in the affidavit filed by Ms Everett in these proceedings dated 16 February 2017.
- [15]In those earlier documents, Ms Everett maintained that the majority of the vaccinations were not the property of the Travel Clinic and that the majority of the vaccinations were obtained by her whilst she was assisting Queensland Health providing vaccinations to volunteers in the clean-up operation following the floods in Brisbane in January 2011. Ms Everett maintained that she had been directed by the Travel Clinic as her employer to provide assistance to Queensland Health and acting under that direction she had volunteered as a nurse immuniser.[2]
- [16]During the vaccination program, Ms Everett maintained that Queensland Health had permitted her to keep the surplus vaccines being used for the program in a refrigerator at her home. At the end of the program, Ms Everett said that she had been told by Queensland Health that she “could do with the vaccines, what [she] wished”.[3]
- [17]Ms Everett said that at all times the vaccines were kept at her home in a special vaccine refrigerator. Ms Everett said that she complied with the strict protocols to ensure compliance with the “cold chain break”.[4] It was never alleged that the vaccines kept by Ms Everett in her home refrigerator had not been appropriately stored.
- [18]Ms Everett maintained that Queensland Health had abandoned the vaccines, she had assumed ownership of the vaccines and the vaccines were never in the possession of the Travel Clinic, nor did the Travel Clinic have a valid claim to the legal ownership of the vaccines.[5]
- [19]In the proceedings, Ms Everett was supported by her now former husband who gave an affidavit deposing to Ms Everett commencing her role as a vaccination nurse in the Queensland Health program.[6]
- [20]Ms Everett maintained that when she attended to conduct onsite vaccinations, she offered to the clients or individual employees that she could provide, on a private basis, a number of additional vaccines. She maintained that her employment with the Travel Clinic did not prevent her conducting her own business or in fact from being employed in other roles.[7]
- [21]When initially questioned by her employer, in respect of some of the additional vaccines, Ms Everett claimed she had purchased some vaccines from a third party supplier.[8]
Evidence led by the Board
- [22]The position taken by Ms Everett necessitated evidence being led by the Board to prove the allegations in the referral. The Board filed affidavits from the principal and business manager of the Travel Clinic, the accountant of the Travel Clinic, representatives of clients of the Travel Clinic, the Chief Health Officer of Queensland Health and a public health nurse who worked as part of the flood program vaccination team. The Board was required to proceed on the basis that all evidence was disputed and arrangements were made for all witnesses to attend the hearing.
Amended response
- [23]Following the filing of the Board’s material and in particular the affidavit of the public health nurse filed on 4 May 2017, Ms Everett filed an amended response to the referral on 12 May 2017 admitting all factual allegations contained in the referral. In doing so, Ms Everett admitted that all vaccines which she had administered were the property of the Travel Clinic and that all payments received were the property of the Travel Clinic.
- [24]Subsequent to the making of those admissions, on 28 June 2017 Ms Everett filed a further affidavit. In that affidavit, Ms Everett continued her reference to having worked on a number of different Queensland Health vaccination campaigns and maintained that it was her understanding at the time, based on her experience as a vaccination nurse and from conversations with Queensland Health, that following a vaccination campaign, Queensland Health “did not want leftover vaccines to be wasted”.[9]
- [25]Ms Everett then stated:
I have now received advice and reflected upon the evidence lodged by the [Board]. I now accept that:
- in the event that any vaccinations were abandoned by Queensland Health, they were abandoned to my employer and not to me personally;
- in the event that any vaccines were abandoned by Queensland Health, or to the extent that I had any leftover vaccines from the performance of my duties, they did not become mine;
- I was mistaken in my recollection that each of the vaccines were from the floods;
- the payments for any vaccines requested by clients of the Travel Clinic should have been paid to the Travel Clinic;
- I should have made the service [the Travel Clinic] aware of each vaccine that I administered;
- it was wrong to collect payments directly to my personal bank account; and
- my conduct amounted to professional misconduct.”[10]
- [26]In her affidavit, Ms Everett stated, “I am sorry for my conduct.”[11]
- [27]Ms Everett referred to having continued to practice as a registered nurse since the allegations the subject of the referral, and that apart from the allegations the subject of the referral, she had never received another complaint about her conduct as a nurse in 27 years of practice.[12]
- [28]Whilst acknowledging that it was not an excuse for her conduct, in the affidavit Ms Everett says that, at the relevant time, she was experiencing depression and that she was in a difficult marriage with a husband who was controlling her finances. Ms Everett referred to having attended marriage counselling “by no later than February 2011 and having separated in 2014”.[13]
The Hearing
- [29]At the hearing, given the admissions made, Ms Everett did not require any of the Board witnesses for cross-examination and Ms Everett was not cross-examined by the Board.
- [30]The conduct the subject of admissions by Ms Everett is clearly capable of supporting a finding of professional misconduct. Appropriately, Ms Everett has admitted her conduct amounts to professional misconduct.
Submissions by the Board
- [31]The issue in dispute is what flows from the misconduct. The Board submitted that, given the seriousness of Ms Everett’s conduct, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to cancel her registration.
- [32]In making its submissions, the Board referred to the fact that Ms Everett’s dishonest conduct extended over a period of several months. The conduct, it was submitted involved Ms Everett misappropriating the vaccines, the property of her employer, issuing in the name of her employer false receipts on 17 dates with the intention of misleading clients of the practice and individual patients into believing her employer was receiving the payments made and retaining for herself the monies received. It was an intricate and sophisticated scheme involving the customers and patients of the practice.
- [33]The Board pointed to Ms Everett’s continuing assertion in these proceedings that she was acting under a mistaken belief as to the ownership of the vaccinations and submitted that the making of such an assertion is a demonstration of an ongoing lack of remorse and insight. The Board referred to the maintenance of her complete denial until just prior to the commencement of the trial.
- [34]The Board says there is very little evidence before the Tribunal which is indicative of any remorse and insight into the offending conduct. The Board says Ms Everett’s assertion that she is sorry must be diminished by her continuing to maintain that she was operating under “a mistaken belief”.
- [35]Further, the Board says the reimbursement of monies to her employer cannot be treated as evidence of remorse in circumstances where Ms Everett continued to maintain her denial up until shortly before the matter was due to come on for hearing.
Submissions by the Respondent
- [36]On behalf of Ms Everett, it is submitted that suspension for a period in the range of 12 months to two years, together with the imposition of conditions requiring the attendance at a course on ethical decision-making and quarterly employer reports for 12 months upon returning to practice, would be appropriate.
- [37]In support of the position taken on behalf of Ms Everett, it was submitted that the misconduct does not give rise to concerns of future suitability of practice. Whilst it was accepted that the sanction must be such as to uphold the standards of the profession, it was submitted that there was no reason as to why such purpose could not be served by a suspension.
- [38]Reference was made to the fact that Ms Everett’s misconduct occurred over a brief period of approximately four months, there had been no prior nor repeat misconduct and the misconduct had occurred during a difficult time in Ms Everett’s personal life. Certainly, the Tribunal has before it three character references attesting to Ms Everett’s practice as a nurse in the period subsequent to the offending conduct. The references are all very positive and supportive of Ms Everett in her current role as a tele-triage registered nurse at the Health Contact Centre.
- [39]Significantly, for Ms Everett it was said that the Tribunal could not be satisfied to the Briginshaw standard that Ms Everett had engaged in “wilful deceit throughout the course of the proceeding.”[14] It was said that the delay of five years in the making of the notification was a significant factor contributing to her erroneous recollection. It was submitted that upon becoming aware of the evidence which demonstrated her recollection was erroneous, Ms Everett had shown insight and remorse.
Discussion
- [40]The Tribunal does not accept that position. It is clear from the evidence that questions had been raised with Ms Everett by her employer as early as July 2011, within a few weeks after the last entry in the cash receipt book. Issues as to her conduct continued to be raised with Ms Everett over at least the next 18 months. Whilst there appears to have been a hiatus in respect of the progression of the matter in the period between January 2013 and the filing of the referral in May 2016, Ms Everett had provided her responses to the initial questioning and continued after the filing of the referral to maintain the same position.
- [41]The manner in which she had issued the receipts for the additional vaccines was clearly intended to convey that the money was being paid to her employer and not to herself. If the vaccines were being provided as part of the conduct of her own business, the receipts would not have been issued in that manner. Her processes were inconsistent with a belief that the vaccines could be treated as her property.
- [42]Ms Everett continued to maintain her denial of any wrongdoing throughout the proceedings and it was only when confronted with irrefutable evidence that her position changed. This shows a complete lack of remorse or insight into her misconduct.
- [43]In terms of her assertions as to the difficult personal circumstances at the time, the Tribunal has no medical or other evidence in support of those assertions. Those assertions had not formed part of any earlier statements made by Ms Everett in the proceedings. Given the conduct of Ms Everett throughout the proceedings, the Tribunal is not inclined to accept that evidence at face value.
Comparative cases
- [44]In support of its position, the Board referred to a number of cases involving fraud or dishonesty for personal financial gain and cases involving dishonesty associated with misappropriation of drugs. For Ms Everett, particular reliance was placed on the decision in Health Ombudsman v Antley,[15] a case involving the falsification of prescriptions as the means of misappropriating drugs. The tribunal does not consider those cases to be as helpful comparatives as cases involving dishonesty for financial gain.
- [45]In terms of those decisions, the Board referred in particular to Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Morley,[16] HCCC v Sohler,[17] HCCC v Deeley,[18] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Bartlett[19] and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Roos.[20] Those reveal that dishonesty of nurses in the workplace has attracted a sanction of cancellation and preclusion from registration for periods of between three and four years.
- [46]The amounts involved ranged from $11,000 of Centrelink fraud and the misuse of a patients’ credit card in Morley, $78,180 of false claims for overtime over 18 months in Sohler, $12,000 for fraudulent claims for wages for time not worked in Deeley, $64,000 for falsified timesheets in Bartlett and $1,200 in the use of taxi vouchers on 15 occasions for transport to and from work without authority in Roos. In all cases, the nurses had been charged and convicted of criminal offences. No criminal proceedings were brought against Ms Everett.
- [47]There is no doubt the sums involved in Sohler and Bartlett are significantly greater, as was the period of offending. However, both Deeley and Roos are useful comparatives.
- [48]In Deeley, the practitioner was an enrolled nurse who claimed $12,292.89 of wages for hours he had not worked. The practitioner submitted false timesheets, and dishonestly obtained the signature of a supervising registered nurse to authorise the false timesheets. Like Ms Everett, the practitioner had verbally represented to others a false state of facts. Deeley’s representations were made in order to obtain the registered nurses’ signatures on his timesheets. He also had prior convictions for Centrelink fraud. The practitioner was able to maintain his deception for a period of around 11 months, whereas Ms Everett’s behaviour occurred over four months.
- [49]The mitigating circumstances of the practitioner were that he had been suffering from depression for a period of 18 months, coinciding with the misconduct, and was experiencing financial strain. The practitioner’s evidence was supported by his medical records.
- [50]The practitioner, like here, was found to have delayed the progression of the matter by spinning “a continuous string of untruths to put off the ultimate determination of this matter by the Tribunal”.[21] His registration was cancelled and he was precluded from re-applying for registration for a period of four years.
- [51]The misconduct in Deeley was more serious and more prolonged than that in Ms Everett’s case, but there are similarities in the repeated dishonesty of both practitioners for personal gain. Both practitioners breached the trust of their employer and, in Deeley’s case, his fellow colleagues, and in Ms Everett’s case, the clients of the Travel Clinic.
- [52]The facts in Roos have some striking similarities. Ms Roos had claimed that she believed she had verbal authority from her line manager to use taxi vouchers for travel to and from work. The evidence was, however, that Ms Roos used fictitious names when using the taxi vouchers for her travel.
- [53]The tribunal found that her conduct pointed to deceit rather than any belief in authorisation. It was said:
The evidence, including her plea of guilty, satisfies me to the required standard that this was cynical and dishonest conduct over an extended period.[22]
The tribunal said:
…the evidence shows a pattern of dishonest conduct over an extended period.[23]
- [54]The difference in Roos was that the practitioner had pre-existing convictions for stealing and/or obtaining property by dishonesty. Those convictions related to stealing money (including a Myer card), totalling $2,997.70, from her nurse colleagues. In the criminal courts, Ms Roos was fined $1,000 and directed to pay restitution.[24] Disciplinary proceedings followed those convictions, and she undertook to attend a psychiatrist twice per month for a period of six months. She breached that undertaking and was reprimanded. That conduct had occurred some 12 years earlier.
- [55]The tribunal found the overall picture in Roos to be one which gave cause for concern as to “the respondent’s character and fitness to practice as a nurse.”[25]
- [56]Ms Roos’ registration had lapsed by the time the matter came on for hearing, and orders were made disqualifying her from applying for registration for a period of three years. She was also reprimanded.
- [57]In referring to Roos, it was submitted on behalf of Ms Everett that the difference was that the circumstances in Roos “strongly suggest a practitioner who had a fundamental character flaw and was unsuited to professional registration.”[26]
- [58]Like here, the tribunal found that the conduct in Roos pointed to deceit rather than belief. In both cases, throughout the course of the proceedings, the registrants had maintained that the misconduct arose from a mistaken belief.
- [59]By way of mitigation, in both proceedings, there was reference to divorce and mental and financial strain.
- [60]Unlike Ms Everett, it was the second occasion on which the practitioner in Roos had been dealt with by the Board for misconduct and for misconduct involving dishonesty. The fact that it was the second occasion certainly worsens the position for that practitioner.
- [61]Nevertheless, the repeated dishonesty by Ms Everett and her continuing need to maintain her elaborate story is suggestive of an underlying character flaw which she has not recognised nor sought to deal with. Her dishonesty in defrauding her employer was opportunistic and the Tribunal is not satisfied that she is not at risk of reoffending.
Sanction
- [62]The Tribunal considers that it is appropriate Ms Everett’s registration should be cancelled, and that, in the circumstances, she be precluded from reapplying for two years. As Ms Everett is currently employed in her capacity as a registered nurse, and given that a considerable time has passed since the matter was heard, it is desirable that her cancellation commence on a date which will enable appropriate arrangements to be made. Section 127 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) permits the making of an order for a decision to take effect on a future date. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to delay the commencement date of the cancellation order for one month after the making of the order.
- [63]Given the decision of the Tribunal to cancel, the Tribunal cannot set conditions under which the registrant may reapply for registration or that must be imposed on any future registration of the registrant by the Board, and the parties do not appear to suggest that the Tribunal can do otherwise. Under the National Law, once the registration is cancelled, the ability to impose conditions upon that registration is lost.[27]
- [64]The registration of Ms Everett at any future time, and the imposition of any conditions on that registration, will be a matter for the Board. At the time of reapplying, Ms Everett will need to satisfy the Board that she is entitled to be registered including that she has currency of practice and is a fit and proper person to be registered.
- [65]In addition, the Board requested that Ms Everett be reprimanded. In previous decisions, the Tribunal has referred to the appropriateness of an order of a reprimand with an order of suspension or cancellation. In Roos, the Honourable James Thomas commented that:
I can see no reason why such orders cannot be made together, but observe that a cancellation or suspension from registration or a prohibition against reapplication for registration itself implies a higher degree of reprimand from the Board. To that end, the inclusion of a reprimand may well seem pointless or unnecessary. That, however, is a matter for individual preference in individual cases.[28]
- [66]The Tribunal finds that, on the facts here, a reprimand is pointless and unnecessary.
Costs
- [67]Since the removal of s 195 of the National Law, the position as to costs in health disciplinary proceedings is that provided for under the QCAT Act. The starting point is that each party bears their own costs.[29]
- [68]Pursuant to s 102 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may make an order for costs if the Tribunal considers that the interests of justice require such an order.
- [69]On the facts here, the Board points to the nature and complexity of the proceedings, the conduct of the practitioner, in particular the conduct in protracting the litigation and maintaining elaborate explanations in an attempt to reduce culpability and the financial circumstances of the Board, being as it is entirely funded by registration fees paid by its registrants.
- [70]On behalf of Ms Everett, it was submitted that the interests of the parties do not require the making of an order for costs. Contrary to the Board’s submissions, it was said this was not a matter where Ms Everett protracted the litigation by mounting unmeritorious defences or needlessly complicated the matter.
- [71]Further, it was submitted that a costs order would have a disproportionate and punitive effect on Ms Everett, particularly in circumstances where Ms Everett’s registration will be suspended (or cancelled) for a significant period.
- [72]The Tribunal accepts that the crippling or punitive effect of a costs order upon a party is capable of being a relevant factor in determining whether the making of a costs order is in the interests of the parties.[30] By reference to the affidavit of Ms Everett dated 2 November 2017, there is no doubt that a costs order will impose a burden on Ms Everett. However, given the findings of the Tribunal in relation to the behaviour of Ms Everett, her conduct in these proceedings has undoubtedly complicated and protracted the litigation and significantly increased the cost of the litigation. Her approach throughout the proceedings meant that the matter was required to be fully prepared for hearing.
- [73]In all the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that a costs order be made, and that the appropriate order is that Ms Everett should pay the Board’s costs on a standard basis.
- [74]Having regard to Ms Everett’s financial circumstances, the Board should be prepared to agree a payment plan to allow the payment of costs, as agreed or as assessed, over a reasonable period. The parties are encouraged to work together to agree such a plan. The parties are granted liberty to apply to the Tribunal if a reasonable payment plan cannot be agreed.
Orders
- [75]Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that:
- Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), the Tribunal finds Ms Everett has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
- Pursuant to s 196(2)(e) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), Ms Everett’s registration is cancelled, effective from 26 November 2018.
- Pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland), Ms Everett is disqualified from applying for registration for a period of two years, commencing on and from 26 November 2018.
- Ms Everett is to pay the Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be assessed on a standard basis on the District Court scale.
- The costs shall be assessed by an assessor to be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, appointed by the Tribunal.
- There be liberty to apply.
Footnotes
[1] Traveller’s Medical Services Pty Ltd traded as “CBD 7 Day Medical Centre” and operated a service known as “The Travel Clinic” (the Travel Clinic).
[2] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 16 February 2017, [29] – [30]; Agreed and disputed facts dated 20 December 2016, [42].
[3] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 16 February 2017, [35].
[4] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 16 February 2017, [22].
[5] Response dated 18 July 2016, [3]; Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 16 February 2017, [35]; Agreed and disputed facts dated 20 December 2016, [42.8].
[6] Affidavit of Glen Everett dated 2 May 2017.
[7] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 16 February 2017, [36], [19].
[8] Affidavit of Dr John Thomas Skala dated 13 January 2017, [24], [26]-[27].
[9] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 28 June 2017, [16].
[10] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 28 June 2017, [17].
[11] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 28 June 2017, [18].
[12] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 28 June 2017, [22].
[13] Affidavit of Tracey Everett dated 28 June 2017, [10].
[14] Respondent’s submissions dated 11 October 2017, [19].
[15] [2016] QCAT 472 (‘Antley’).
[16] [2014] SAHPT 17 (‘Morley’).
[17] [2010] NSWNMT 18 (‘Sohler’).
[18] [2010] NSWNMT 34 (‘Deeley’).
[19] [2013] VCAT 2014 (‘Barlett’).
[20] [2016] QCAT 231 (‘Roos’).
[21] [2010] NSWNMT 34, [234].
[22] [2016] QCAT 231, [19].
[23] [2016] QCAT 231, [19].
[24] [2016] QCAT 231, [11]-[12].
[25] [2016] QCAT 231, [20].
[26] Respondent’s submissions dated 11 October 2017, [28].
[27] Nursing & Midwifery Board of Australia v Frankhauser [2013] QCAT 395, [39].
[28] [2016] QCAT 231, [31].
[29] QCAT Act, s 100.
[30] Health Ombudsman v Antley [2016] QCAT 472, [72].