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

Health Ombudsman v Shemer[2019] QCAT 53

Health Ombudsman v Shemer[2019] QCAT 53

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Shemer [2019] QCAT 53

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

 

v

 

LOGAN SHEMER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR206-2018

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 February 2019 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane 

DECISION OF:

Judge Allen QC, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Dr J Cavanagh

Dr J Osborne

Mrs F Petty

ORDERS:

  1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal finds that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
  2. Pursuant to s 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is reprimanded.
  3. Pursuant to s 107(3)(b) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal imposes conditions on the registration of the respondent in accordance with the attached Schedule of Conditions.
  4. Pursuant to s 109(2) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the National Law, Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 applies to the conditions.
  5. Pursuant to s 109(3) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the review period for the conditions is two (2) years.
  6. There be no order as to costs.
  7. The respondent may file one (1) copy in the Tribunal and serve one (1) copy on the applicant of any application for any further non-publication order, and any submissions in support therefore by Friday, 22 February 2019.
  8. The applicant may file one (1) copy in the Tribunal and serve one (1) copy on the respondent of any submissions in response by Wednesday, 27 February 2019.
  9. Any further application for any further non-publication order will be determined by the Tribunal on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – SANCTION - where the respondent doctor self-prescribed various controlled and restricted drugs – where the conduct involved dishonesty – where the use of the controlled and restricted drugs adversely affected the respondent’s work performance – where the respondent pleaded guilty to a number of criminal offences in relation to the conduct – where the respondent’s registration was suspended for some 20 months pursuant to immediate action taken by the Medical Board of Australia - where the respondent voluntarily entered into an undertaking with the  Medical Board of Australia placing limits on his practise – where the undertaking led to the revocation of the suspension and enabled the respondent to return to practise – where the respondent has complied with the undertaking – where the respondent has engaged in extensive rehabilitative activities – where the respondent has shown insight - where the respondent admits that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct – where the parties provided joint submissions as to sanction – whether the proposed sanction is appropriate

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – SANCTION – where an extended period of suspension of the respondent’s registration was imposed pursuant to immediate action taken by the Medical Board of Australia - where the respondent has subsequently returned to practice – where the applicant invited the Tribunal to indicate what the appropriate sanction would be absent the period of suspension – whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to make such an indication

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 104, s 107, s 109

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 102

Health Ombudsman v NLM [2018] QCAT 164
Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

AR Forbes (sol) Lander & Rogers Lawyers

Respondent:

R O'Gorman instructed by Avant Law

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The applicant has referred these disciplinary proceedings against the respondent to the Tribunal pursuant to s 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’).  The parties have agreed to the facts that are stated in these reasons and have jointly submitted the Tribunal make a finding of professional misconduct, and have jointly submitted that certain orders be made by way of sanction.
  2. [2]
    The respondent was first registered as a medical practitioner on 3 January 2012.  He was then employed in hospitals in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland until about 27 May 2016. 
  3. [3]
    The admitted conduct may be summarised as follows.  Between late 2014 and early 2016, the respondent was self-prescribing various controlled and restricted drugs.  By about late 2015, the respondent was abusing certain controlled and restricted drugs.  By about March or April 2016, the respondent’s use of the controlled and restricted drugs was adversely affecting his work performance. 
  4. [4]
    On occasions, the respondent wrote scripts in his name as a patient with the drug purportedly being prescribed by another medical practitioner, or wrote a script in another person’s name as the patient.  Some of the scripts written by the respondent were on prescription pads that he had stolen from hospitals.  On a few occasions, the respondent represented to pharmacists that the drugs he was seeking to obtain could be dispensed to him. 
  5. [5]
    The respondent’s conduct led to him being charged with criminal offences, and on 20 March 2017, the respondent pleaded guilty to criminal offences which are detailed in annexure B to the statement of agreed facts, which is part of exhibit 1, and which will be annexed to these reasons.  The respondent was sentenced to a term of six months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of two years. 
  6. [6]
    The parties jointly submit, and the Tribunal finds, that the respondent’s conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct. 
  7. [7]
    On 17 June 2016, the Health Ombudsman suspended the respondent’s registration, and on 30 September 2016, the respondent’s registration lapsed.  From about May 2016, the respondent was under the care of a psychiatrist for treatment of his drug abuse.  On 18 October 2016, the respondent attended a health assessment, and the assessing psychiatrist diagnosed the respondent as suffering amphetamine dependence and benzodiazepine abuse. 
  8. [8]
    With respect to sanction, the applicant acknowledges the following are relevant considerations: 
    1. (a)
      The respondent was suspended between June 2016 and February 2018.  On 27 February 2018, the Health Ombudsman revoked the decision to suspend the respondent’s registration, and the Medical Board of Australia granted general registration as a medical practitioner to the respondent upon his offer, and the Board’s acceptance, of an undertaking that placed limitations on the respondent’s practice, including supervised practice, restrictions on access to medication and participating in random drug screening.
    2. (b)
      The respondent’s successful steps taken in his rehabilitation.  The respondent has taken extensive and successful steps towards his rehabilitation.  His treating psychiatrist speaks in very positive terms about his recovery.
    3. (c)
      The respondent’s early admissions in these proceedings.
    4. (d)
      The respondent’s cooperation with the applicant during the course of these proceedings, in making early admissions and assisting the applicant and the Tribunal, saving the time and expense of conducting a contested hearing. 
  9. [9]
    The respondent submits that the following factors are relevant to a determination of sanction: 
    1. (a)
      The seriousness of the respondent’s conduct. 
    2. (b)
      The impact of the respondent’s conduct on his medical practice, and in that regard, the Tribunal notes that such impact does not appear to have impacted upon patient safety. 
    3. (c)
      The respondent’s drug addiction at the time of his conduct. 
    4. (d)
      The respondent’s early admissions and his cooperation with the investigation into his conduct and subsequent criminal and disciplinary proceedings.
    5. (e)
      The period of time which has passed since the conduct during which the respondent was initially suspended for 18 months, and subsequently subject to conditions on his registration. 
    6. (f)
      The significant, sustained and successful efforts at rehabilitation engaged in by the respondent, commencing with an immediate inpatient admission at the Damascus Unit at the Brisbane Private Hospital, from 24 June 2016 to 8 July 2016, and subsequent engagement in the day patient program, along with treatment by a psychiatrist.
    7. (g)
      The respondent’s sustained period of abstinence from drug use since his conduct was detected. 
    8. (h)
      The respondent’s remorse and insight into his conduct.
    9. (i)
      The ongoing risk posed by the respondent appearing to be minimal in light of his treating psychiatrist’s assessment that he is now fit to return to full-time work, that his risks of relapse are very small and that his risk of reoffending is very low.
    10. (j)
      The respondent’s compliance with his undertaking to the Medical Board of Australia since it was entered into on the 14 February 2018. 
  10. [10]
    The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the parties, that these are relevant circumstances. 
  11. [11]
    In considering appropriate orders as to sanction, as was recently affirmed by the Tribunal in Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley,[1]considerations relevant to the imposition of sanction include:
    1. (a)
      the principle that the jurisdiction is essentially protective, not punitive;
    2. (b)
      the paramountcy of the health and safety of the public; 
    3. (c)
      personal deterrence;
    4. (d)
      general deterrence, the maintenance of professional standards and the maintenance of public confidence; 
    5. (e)
      an assessment of the ongoing risk posed by the practitioner, including an assessment of the degree to which the practitioner has developed insight into his conduct; 
    6. (f)
      evidence of rehabilitation;  and
    7. (g)
      other matters that may be regarded as aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 
  12. [12]
    The parties have jointly submitted that appropriate orders as to sanction are a reprimand, and that conditions be placed upon the respondent’s registration in terms consistent with the terms of the undertaking given to the Board with the additional requirements that the information given to the Board is also to be given to the applicant;  the Board, and the applicant, be permitted to exchange information concerning the respondent’s compliance with the conditions, and his health status;  and there be a non-review period of two years.
  13. [13]
    A reprimand is not a trivial penalty, and has the potential for serious adverse implications to a professional person.[2]  It is appropriate that there be a public denunciation of the respondent’s conduct by way of a reprimand.
  14. [14]
    The Tribunal ought not depart from the proposed sanction agreement between the parties unless it falls outside the permissible range.[3]  The Tribunal finds that the proposed sanction is an appropriate one in all the circumstances, and will make orders to such effect. 
  15. [15]
    The applicant submits that, had the respondent not been suspended from practice, an appropriate order may have been that his registration be suspended for approximately two years, with conditions placed upon his re-registration.  The applicant seeks that the Tribunal note what would have been the appropriate period of suspension, had the applicant not taken immediate registration action, and submits, in light of the seriousness of the respondent’s misconduct, including the significant dishonesty involved, that the Tribunal find that cancellation or suspension for not less than two years would have been appropriate.
  16. [16]
    The counsel for the respondent has resisted such a finding, and referred to the decision of the Health Ombudsman v NLM,[4] which involves a practitioner engaging in similar conduct with significant dishonesty, similarly affecting the registrant’s work, but without, it seems, compromise of patient care.  In that matter, the registrant had been subject to conditions on their practice for about three years, but had not been prohibited from continuing their work as a medical practitioner, and had demonstrated extensive and successful rehabilitation. In that matter, the registrant, rather than being suspended from practice for any period, was reprimanded and fined $5,000. 
  17. [17]
    The applicant has made submissions drawing a distinction between this matter and NLM, and referring to other arguably comparable cases as demonstrating a range of sanction, and suggesting that this case, if not for the period during which the respondent has been suspended from practice, would have fallen towards the top of that range and therefore would have, if not for the registrant’s suspension, have attracted orders for sanction of cancellation or suspension for not less than two years.
  18. [18]
    These submissions of the parties, and the cases to which they have referred, reinforce the perhaps trite observation that each case depends upon its own facts and circumstances.  I am dealing with the respondent’s circumstances as, in fact, they are, and the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to make theoretical findings as to what may have been an appropriate sanction in other circumstances.  The Tribunal declines to make the findings sought by the applicant in that regard. 
  19. [19]
    With respect to costs, both parties agree that each party should bear their own costs of the proceedings. Such submissions are consistent with the terms of s 102 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and such an order will be made. 
  20. [20]
    In this matter, at an earlier stage, a non-publication order was made by the Tribunal, protecting the identification of any patients whose identities might be revealed by the material.  Counsel for the respondent seeks to make submissions as to whether or not a wider non-publication order should be made, protecting the identity of the respondent, and anonymising any reasons of this Tribunal in this matter, and refers to once again, to the decision of NLM where the Tribunal, in not dissimilar circumstances, afforded the parties the opportunity to make such submissions.  In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the Tribunal allow the parties to have such an opportunity.  To enable that to occur, these reasons will be de-identified until sometime as any application for a further non-publication order is heard and determined by the Tribunal. 
  21. [21]
    The Tribunal will make orders in terms of the draft order amended in terms already indicated to the parties which involve the Tribunal finding that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct; reprimanding the respondent; placing conditions upon the respondent’s registration consistent with the terms of the undertaking previously given to the Medical Board of Australia; imposing a review period for the conditions of two years and making no order as to costs.  Such draft order is initialled by me and placed on the file. 
  22. [22]
    The Tribunal also directs that the respondent file and serve any application for any further non-publication order, and any submissions in support thereof by Friday, 22 February 2019, and that the applicant file and serve any submissions in response by Wednesday, 27 February 2019, and that any further application for any further non-publication order be determined by the Tribunal on the papers. 

Schedule of Conditions

  1. [1]
    The Practitioner will only practise in place(s) of practice approved by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).

For the purposes of this undertaking, ‘practise’ is defined as any role, whether remunerated or not, in which the individual uses their skills and knowledge as a medical practitioner in their profession. It is not restricted to the provision of direct clinical care and includes using the knowledge and skills of a medical practitioner in a direct non-clinical relationship with a client, working in management, administration, education, research, advisory, regulatory or policy development roles and any other roles that impact on safe, effective delivery of services in the medical practitioner industry.

  1. [2]
    Within 14 days the Practitioner will provide to AHPRA and the Office of the Health Ombudsman (OHO), on  the approved form, acknowledgement that AHPRA and OHO may:
    1. (a)
      Seek reports from the Senior Practice Manager, Senior Partner, Owner or equivalent (the senior person) at each place of practice on at least a three monthly basis or as otherwise required.
    2. (b)
      Request and access from the senior person at each place of practice copies of rosters, pay slips, or the equivalent.
    3. (c)
      Have contact with and access information from, where relevant, Medicare, private health insurers and/or practice billing data.
  2. [3]
    Within 14 days the Practitioner will provide to AHPRA and OHO, on the approved form (HPS7), acknowledgement from the senior person at each place of practise that they are aware AHPRA and OHO will seek reports from them.

Prohibition on access to medication

  1. [4]
    The Practitioner will not self-prescribe or prescribe to a relative, friend, professional colleague or person in a contractual or financial relationship with the Practitioner (hereafter referred to as access) including as emergency treatment supplies or doctor’s bag stock, any substance listed in Schedule(s) 3, 4 and 8 of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (the SUSMP) as amended from time to time and as published at https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/poisons-standard-susmpt and/or pharmaceutical items containing any active ingredient listed within 3, 4 and 8 of the SUSMP.
  2. [5]
    Within 14 days the Practitioner will provide to AHPRA and OHO:
    1. (a)
      Acknowledgement, on the approved form (HP1), that AHPRA and OHO may obtain reports from the Senior Practice Manager, Senior Partner, Owner or equivalent (a senior person) at each and every place of practice on a  three monthly basis or as otherwise required by the Board or AHPRA.
    2. (b)
      Acknowledgement, on the approved form (HP1), that for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the undertaking restricting access to medication, AHPRA and OHO may contact Medicare and/or drugs and poisons regulatory authorities in relevant states or territories.
    3. (c)
      Confirmation, on the approved form (HPS1), from the senior person at each place of practice that they are aware AHPRA and OHO will seek reports from them.

Supervised Practice

  1. [6]
    The Practitioner will be supervised by another registered health practitioner (the supervisor) when practising as a medical practitioner.

For the purposes of this undertaking, ‘supervised’ is defined as:

The Practitioner will consult with the supervisor who is always physically present in the workplace and available to observe and discuss the Practitioner’s management of patients and/or performance when necessary and otherwise at weekly intervals.

  1. [7]
    Within 14 days the Practitioner will, on the approved form (HPN10), nominate a primary supervisor and at least one alternate supervisor to be approved by AHPRA. The Practitioner will ensure that each nomination is accompanied by an acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPNA10), from each nominated supervisor that they are willing to undertake the role of supervisor and are aware that AHPRA and OHO will seek reports from them.
  2. [8]
    In the event that no approved supervisor is willing or able to provide the supervisions required, the Practitioner will cease practice immediately and will not resume practice until a new supervisor has been nominated by the Practitioner and approved by AHPRA.

Acknowledgement that AHPRA and OHO may:

  1. (a)
    obtain information from relevant authorities (such as but not limited to Medicare);
  2. (b)
    obtain information and/or a report from the senior person at each place of practice on a three monthly basis; and
  3. (c)
    obtain a report from the approved supervisor on a three monthly basis.
  1. [9]
    Within 14 days the Practitioner will provide to AHPRA and OHO, on the approved form (HPS10), acknowledgement from the senior person at each place of practice that AHPRA and OHO may seek reports from them.

Undertake hair drug screening

  1. [10]
    The Practitioner will only take substances  prescribed, approved, or administered by a nominated treating practitioner(s) and such nominated treating practitioner(s) may not be a relative, friend, professional colleague or in a contractual or financial relationship with the Practitioner.

For the purposes of this undertaking ‘substance’ is defined as any illicit substance as well as any pharmacist only, prescription only and any controlled drug medication as contained in Schedule 3, 4 or 8 in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medications and Poisons (the SUSMP) as amended from time to time and as published at https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/poisons-standard-susmp.

  1. [11]
    Within 14 days of the notice of the Board’s acceptance of these undertakings, the Practitioner will commence random urine drug screening (UDS) and hair analysis for drug screening (hair analysis) in accordance with AHPRA’s protocols for UDS and hair analysis (the protocol) in force at the date these undertakings are accepted and then amended from time to time.
  2. [12]
    The Practitioner will commence UDS and hair analysis at Group One frequency or as otherwise advised by AHPRA and will continue to attend at this frequency until the Board approves otherwise.
  3. [13]
    Within 14 days the Practitioner will provide to AHPRA and OHO:
    1. (a)
      Acknowledgement, on the approved form (HP6), that he understands the requirements of the protocol as it pertains to urine and hair drug screening and he is aware of AHPRA’s monitoring of this undertaking.
    2. (b)
      The details, on the approved form (HPF6), of all current substances that have been prescribed or administered to or approved for the Practitioner, along with the contact information of all prescribing practitioners who have, or are likely to, prescribe, approve or administer substances.

Attend treating practitioners

  1. [14]
    The Practitioner will undertake treatment with a General Practitioner and Psychiatrist (the treating practitioner(s)) and attend at a frequency determined by the treating practitioner(s).
  2. [15]
    Within 14 days the Practitioner will provide the following to AHPRA and OHO:
    1. (a)
      The contact details, on the approved form (HPF3), of all treating practitioners.
    2. (b)
      Acknowledgement, on the approved form (HPF3), from the Practitioner that AHPRA may seek reports from the treating practitioner(s) on a monthly basis.
    3. (c)
      Confirmation, on the approved form (HPNA3), from the treating practitioner(s) that they have seen a copy of the undertakings on the Practitioner’s registration and are aware AHPRA and OHO may contact them to seek reports.
  3. [16]
    Within 21 days/ the Practitioner will provide to AHPRA and OHO, on the approved form (HPC), the contact details of a senior person, such as the Director of Medical Services, Director of Nursing, Senior Practice Manager, Senior Manager, Senior Partner, Proprietor, Owner, or equivalent (the senior person) at each current place of practice. In providing this form, the Practitioner acknowledges that:
    1. (a)
      AHPRA will contact the senior person and provide them with a copy of the undertakings on the Practitioner’s registration or confirm that the senior person has received a copy of the undertakings from the Practitioner; and
    2. (b)
      the Practitioner will provide the same form:
      1. within seven days of the commencement of practice at each and every subsequent place of practice; and
      2. within seven days of each and every notice of any subsequent alternation of these undertakings.
  4. [17]
    The Practitioner acknowledges AHPRA and OHO may exchange information between them concerning the Practitioner’s compliance with these conditions (and the Practitioner’s undertakings to the Board) and the Practitioner’s health and performance as a medical practitioner.
  5. [18]
    All costs associated with compliance with the undertakings on the Practitioner’s registration are at the Practitioner’s own expense.

Annexure

CONVICTIONS – 20 MARCH 2017

Charge No.

Date of Offence

Offence

1

26 May 2016

Attempted fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) and 535 Criminal Code)

2

26 May 2016

Utter forged document (s 488(1)(b) Criminal Code)

3

Between 8 May and 18 May 2016

Attempted fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

6

Between 8 May and 18 May 2016

Dispense, obtain, prescribe, sell or use a specified condition drug (s 78(1) Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

7

22 May2016

Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

10

22 May 2016

Dispense, obtain, prescribe, sell or use a specified condition drug (s 78(1) Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

11

15 February 2016

Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

14

15 February 2016

Unlawful possession of controlled drugs (s 94 Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

15

9 December 2015

Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

18

9 December 2015

Unlawful possession of controlled drugs (s 94 Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

19

13 December 2015

Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

23

19 April 2016

Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

26

19 April 2016

Unlawful possession of restricted drugs (s 204 Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

27

Between 15 February and 30 March 2016

Dispense, obtain, prescribe, sell or use a specified condition drug (s 78(1) Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

28

Between 4 April and 5 May 2016

Dispense, obtain, prescribe, sell or use a specified condition drug (s 78(1) Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

29

Between 7 March and 25 March 2015

Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

32

Between 7 March and 25 March 2015

Dispense, obtain, prescribe, sell or use a specified condition drug (s 78(1) Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

33

14 March 2015

Fraud - dishonestly gain benefit/advantage (s 408C(1)(d) Criminal Code)

36

14 March 2015

Dispense, obtain, prescribe, sell or use a specified condition drug (s 78(1) Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

37

18 July 2016

Bringing stolen goods into Queensland (s 406 Criminal Code)

38

Between 1 February and 19 July 2016

Stealing by clerks and servants (s 398.6 Criminal Code)

39

Between 1 January and 19 July 2016

Stealing by clerks and servants (s 398.6 Criminal Code)

1 Case file:

MAG-

00183090/1

6(0)

Between 9 February and 1 June 2016

Notice required if lengthy treatment with controlled drug failed to immediately given written report (s 120(2) Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1966)

The practitioner was convicted of charges 1 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 29, 33, 37, 38 and 39. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months for each offence. It was ordered that the whole of the term of imprisonment be suspended forthwith; and the practitioner must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of two years if to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment.

With respect to charges 6, 10, 14, 18, 26, 27, 28, 32 and 36 the practitioner was convicted, but not punished.

With respect to charge 1 - Case file: MAG-00183090/16(0) the practitioner was convicted, with the conviction recorded, and fined $500.00.

Footnotes

[1][2018] QCAT 163, at [104]-[143].

[2]Psychology Board of Australia v Cameron [2015] QCAT 227 at [2].

[3]Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376 at [91]-[93.]

[4][2018] QCAT 164 (‘NLM’).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Health Ombudsman v Shemer

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Health Ombudsman v Shemer

  • MNC:

    [2019] QCAT 53

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Judge Allen QC, Deputy President

  • Date:

    18 Feb 2019

Appeal Status

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

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.