Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v GLM - [2022] QCAT 337

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

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v GLM[2022] QCAT 337

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v GLM[2022] QCAT 337

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v GLM [2022] QCAT 337

PARTIES:

veterinary surgeons Board of Queensland

(applicant)

v

GLM

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR 327-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2022

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Paratz AM

Member Baxendell

Member Grigg

ORDERS:

  1. The Tribunal finds that GLM has engaged in misconduct in a professional respect pursuant to section 22F of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld).
  2. The name of GLM is to be removed from the register of veterinary surgeons pursuant to section 22E(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld), effective from 19 September 2020.
  3. GLM may not reapply to the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland for registration until 19 March 2023, being a period of 2.5 years (30 months) from 19 September 2020.
  4. GLM is to pay costs to the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland fixed in the sum of One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00) pursuant to s 15D(1) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld).
  5. Publication is prohibited of:
  1. (a)
    the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal; and
  2. (b)
    the hearing before the Tribunal; and
  3. (c)
    any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal,

to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the respondent (including by way of publication of the respondent’s name, the name of any of her family members, and the publication of the name of the respondents veterinary practice and its location), pursuant to section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – VETERINARY SURGEONS – MISCONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE – where a Veterinary Surgeon was alleged to have engaged in misconduct in a professional respect – where facts were agreed, and joint submissions as to substantiation and sanction were filed – where grounds for disciplinary action were found – where the grounds related to alcohol and drug abuse, making false documents, negligence in practice as a veterinary surgeon, deception, allowing an unqualified person to practice veterinary science, and conducting a veterinary practice at unapproved premises – where the name of the veterinary surgeon was removed from the register – where orders were made that no application for registration was to be made until 2 ½ years from a nominated date

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld), s 15B, s 22, s 22E, s 22F

Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 24

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v  Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 619

NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285

Ooi v Medical Board of Queensland [1997] 2 Qd R 176

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Auld [2018] QCAT 447

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin [2016] QCAT 380

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin [2017] QCAT 93

Veterinary Surgeons Board (NSW) v Hughes [2013] NSWADT 313

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v O'Flaherty [2016] QCAT 8

Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Temmingh [2004] NSWADT 186

Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Thompson [2007] NSWADT 186

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

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

Applicant:

Turks Legal

Respondent:

Potts Lawyers

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    GLM has held registration as a veterinary surgeon under section 22F of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (the Act) since about 2007. She was the owner of, and practised at, a regional clinic in Queensland between about February 2012 and August 2017.
  2. [2]
    The Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland (the Board) filed an amended application on 20 December 2019 in the Tribunal to hear and decide whether misconduct in a professional respect is found, pursuant to section 22 of the Act.
  3. [3]
    The matter was heard on the papers by way of submissions, pursuant to directions of the Tribunal made on 25 August 2020 and 3 March 2022. The Tribunal was constituted by a legally qualified member (Member Paratz AM) and two other QCAT members who are veterinary surgeons (Dr Baxendell and Dr Grigg) in accordance with section 15B(1) of the Act. This is our decision, and our reasons, in the matter.

Grounds

  1. [4]
    The Board applied to the Tribunal to conduct a proceeding to decide whether a disciplinary ground, namely misconduct in a professional respect, is established.
  2. [5]
    The grounds for the disciplinary action were set out by the Board in the application as follows:

The ground for disciplinary action is that GLM has behaved in a way that constitutes misconduct in a professional respect pursuant to section 22F of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 in that she:

  1. is habitually drunk and is addicted to a deleterious drug;
  2. signed or gave in her professional capacity a certificate notice report or like document that is incomplete or is false or misleading in a material respect;
  3. is negligent or incompetent in the practice of her profession;
  4. practices deception in the practice of her profession;
  5. directs or allows a person who is not a veterinary surgeon to practice veterinary science in relation to an animal under the veterinary surgeon’s care
  6. conducts a veterinary practice at premises other than veterinary premises.

Agreed Facts

  1. [6]
    A Statement of Agreed Facts was filed on 20 December 2019. The matters in the following paragraphs were agreed.

Premises

  1. [7]
    Between 2012 and 2017, GLM and her employees and/or agents performed acts of veterinary science for fee or reward at the clinic, which was not approved for use as veterinary premises at any time in that period, and no application was made to the Board for approval in that period.[1]

House-Call Practice

  1. [8]
    Between 2012 and 2017, a house-call practice was conducted by GLM and her employees and/or agents to perform acts of veterinary science from or using three vehicles and a horse crush trailer that were not approved by the Board to use as veterinary premises[2] for the purposes of providing a house-call practice in connection with the Clinic.
  2. [9]
    GLM did not apply to the Board for approval to conduct a small or large animal veterinary house-call practice.[3]
  3. [10]
    Neither GLM nor her employees performing acts of veterinary sciences using the clinic vehicles had access to Board approved premises for cases requiring hospitalisation or procedures requiring general anaesthetic or intensive care.[4]

Controlled and Restricted Medicines

  1. [11]
    From or about 2012, GLM held, or caused to be held, various controlled medicines at the clinic for the purposes of providing veterinary services, in a cabinet that did not comply with s 119 of the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1996, in that the cabinet was secured to a timber wall by only 2 bolts in circumstances where 4 bolts were required.[5] She also, from or about 2012, held or caused to be held, various restricted and controlled medicines in clinic vehicles for the purpose of providing veterinary services, including:
    1. (a)
      Butorphanol
    2. (b)
      Ketamine
    3. (c)
      Methadone
    4. (d)
      Lethabarb
    5. (e)
      Diazepam
    6. (f)
      vaccinations
    7. (g)
      medicines and poisons necessary for the purpose of providing artificial insemination services her; and
    8. (h)
      Butorphanol, Ketamine and Methadone which are controlled drugs falling within Schedule 8 of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons.

Panadeine Forte

  1. [12]
    Panadeine Forte (codeine) is a restricted medicine falling within Schedule 4 of the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons, and may only be obtained on prescription.[6]
  2. [13]
    Panadeine Forte is only prescribed for use of animals in very rare cases where the animals require an analgesic, but their concurrent medical conditions exclude the use of routine veterinary analgesics.[7]
  3. [14]
    GLM previously prescribed Panadeine Forte on the basis of its inclusion in the Veterinary Drug Book – Client Information in addition, 2003 authored by Davidson and Plumb, which states at page 44: ‘Codeine is an opiate narcotic that is useful to treat moderate pain, cough and diarrhoea primarily in dogs…’[8]
  4. [15]
    From about 2012, GLM ordered or caused Panadeine Forte to be ordered through the clinic for personal use, from the restricted drugs cabinet in the clinic, and from boxes delivered by wholesalers to the clinic, which she used to place in her handbag and keep at her home and in her vehicle.[9]
  5. [16]
    From on or about 2012, and on numerous occasions, GLM wrote prescriptions to obtain Panadeine Forte for her personal use from the local pharmacy.[10]
  6. [17]
    On nine occasions GLM wrote prescriptions for Panadeine Forte for the benefit of the clinic. Each of the prescriptions were for the Panadeine Forte as either 3 boxes of 20, or 2 boxes of 20.
  7. [18]
    GLM prescribed Panadeine Forte to (an animal), which it is accepted, is contrary to accepted veterinary practice.[11]
  8. [19]
    GLM sold 10 tablets of Panadeine Forte to clients of the clinic on or about 23 September 2012 and sold one tablet to a client of the clinic on 14 May 2012, for their dogs to relieve their pain, which it is accepted, is contrary to accepted veterinary practice.[12]

Performing acts of veterinary science

  1. [20]
    In May 2017, GLM consumed cocaine prior to commencing a consultation at about 9am.[13]
  2. [21]
    On 9 August 2017, GLM performed three surgical procedures while under the influence of unknown drugs and a Fentanyl patch (100mg) which had been applied by herself to her left rib cage, which had not been prescribed by a medical practitioner, and which had been obtained from wholesalers through the clinic for use in animals.[14]
  3. [22]
    On 27 November 2017, having consumed upwards of 10 shots of alcohol at a local hotel, GLM instructed a person to drive her to the clinic where she proceeded to perform a caesarean on a dog.[15]
  4. [23]
    On 10 November 2017, GLM, while under the influence of alcohol, conducted an exploratory surgery on a German Shepherd, and conducted a caesarean and delivered puppies from a French Bulldog. GLM accepts that it was inappropriate to consume any alcohol at the clinic before performing the procedures.[16]
  5. [24]
    On 31 August 2015, GLM instructed a veterinary nurse in the employ of the clinic to perform an act of veterinary science, namely to attend to a greyhound at the clinic to euthanise it.

Baycox

  1. [25]
    On or about 2 August 2017, GLM made a mistake in converting the ratio of Toltrazuril (Baycox) between units of measurement, and prescribed a dose of to a French Bulldog at the clinic for the purpose of treating coccidiosis, of 600mg (200m/kg) or 12 mls of a 50mg/m concentration, which was 10 times the correct or recommended dose and had the potential to be lethal.[17]

Alteration of Clinical Records

  1. [26]
    On 27 October 2017 and 21 November 2017, GLM falsified tax invoices by representing that another vet performed a veterinary procedure when she did not.[18]
  2. [27]
    On 15 December 2017, GLM falsified a tax invoice in the amount of $2,000 when no procedures were undertaken for the person, or alternatively a procedure was undertaken and no clinical records were prepared.[19]
  3. [28]
    On or about 18 October 2017, GLM created a misleading clinical record for an insemination procedure she had conducted that day for a Great Dane, stating that it had been conducted by another vet.[20]
  4. [29]
    On or about 10 November 2017, GLM altered or created a misleading clinical record for an exploratory surgery she had conducted that day for a German Shepherd, stating that it had been conducted by another vet.[21]
  5. [30]
    On or about 17 December 2017, GLM created a misleading clinical record for a Great Dane stating another vet had conducted a caesarean on 15 December 2017, when in fact the procedure was conducted by her on 17 December 2017.[22]

Advertising

  1. [31]
    After the clinic ceased trading in about 24 August 2017, GLM did not cease advertising and maintained the webpage for the clinic until in or about November 2017.[23]

Breach of Undertaking

  1. [32]
    On 16 August 2017 GLM gave a voluntary undertaking, and agreed to:[24]
    1. (a)
      immediately cease practising as a veterinary surgeon;
    2. (b)
      surrender all medicines and poisons in her possession, other than those prescribed to her by her medical practitioner; and
    3. (c)
      surrender her statutory endorsements to obtain, possess, administer, dispense, sell or otherwise prescribe medicines and poisons.
  2. [33]
    Between on or about 18 October 2017 and 20 December 2017, GLM performed acts of veterinary science on 13 occasions in breach of the undertaking, by variously performing an insemination using the drug Alfaxan; scrubbing and entering the clinic’s operating theatre; examining dogs; performing exploratory procedure on a dog; performing a caesarean section and delivering puppies for three dogs; performing ultrasound on a dog; undertaking a vaccination for a puppy; and undertaking consultations for dogs.[25]

Characterisation of Conduct

  1. [34]
    GLM agreed, by reason of the matters described above, that she had engaged in misconduct in a professional respect pursuant to section 22F of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 in that she:[26]
    1. (a)
      is habitually drunk or is addicted to a deleterious drug;
    2. (b)
      signed or gave in her professional capacity a certificate notice report or like document that is incomplete or misleading in a material respect;
    3. (c)
      is negligent in the practice of her profession;
    4. (d)
      is deliberately deceptive in the practice of her profession;
    5. (e)
      directed or allowed a person who is not a veterinary surgeon to practice veterinary science in relation to an animal under her care; and
    6. (f)
      conducted a veterinary practice at premises other than veterinary premises.

Non-publication order

  1. [35]
    The Tribunal made a non-publication order on 29 July 2020 as follows:

It is the order of the Tribunal that:

1. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the publication of:

  1. the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
  2. evidence given before the Tribunal; and
  3. any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of any child or any innocent third party to the proceedings, save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings.

  1. [36]
    The non-publication order that was made on 9 July 2020 (consequent upon the making of an application by GLM for a non-publication order on 17 April 1990) related to the conduct of the proceedings.
  2. [37]
    The Tribunal may make a non-publication order on its own initiative pursuant to 66(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
  3. [38]
    We consider it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider a further non-publication order for the purposes of these reasons and orders, to continue in force after completion of these proceedings, on its own initiative.
  4. [39]
    The Tribunal may make a non-publication order if it considers the order is necessary to avoid endangering the physical or mental health or safety of a person, pursuant to s 66(2) (b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
  5. [40]
    We have regard to the initial application for a non-publication order made on 17 April 2020, and the supporting material filed with it. That application sought a non-publication order as follows:

The Tribunal orders that:

Pursuant to s. 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), publication of:

  1. (a)
    the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
  2. (b)
    the hearing before the Tribunal; and
  3. (c)
    any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal,

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the respondent (including by way of publication of the respondent’s name, the name of any of her family members, and the publication of the name of the respondents veterinary practice and its location).

  1. [41]
    The solicitors for the Board advised the Tribunal and the solicitors for GLM, by a letter dated 12 May 2020 that the Board was mindful that the orders sought by GLM require the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, and that accordingly the formal position of the Board is that it does not oppose the non-publication orders.
  2. [42]
    A report of Doctor Yoxall, a psychologist, dated 6 March 2020, was filed with the application for a non-publication order.
  3. [43]
    Doctor Yoxall provided a comprehensive psychological assessment of GLM, including discussion as to her personal background and family situations.
  4. [44]
    It is not necessary for the purposes of these reasons to discuss the report of Doctor Yoxall in any greater detail. For the purposes of considering the making of a further non-publication order, the conclusion of Doctor Yoxall as to whether the publication of any materials in this matter may foreseeably endanger her mental or physical health or any of her children, is sufficient:[27]

It is my strong view, (based on 25 years practice as a psychologist in private and public settings and including assessment and treatment of individuals with a variety of psychological disorders and the impact of external events and environmental stressors on same), that publication of any materials in this matter would foreseeably endanger GLM’s mental health.

  1. [45]
    Doctor Yoxall went on to voice the view that the public dissemination of information pertaining to their mother would reach her children and impact them.[28]
  2. [46]
    We are satisfied, having regard to the unchallenged opinion of Doctor Yoxall, that it is appropriate that a non-publication order now be made on a continuing basis, in terms as sought by the application made on 17 April 2020, and will order accordingly.

Joint submissions on sanction

  1. [47]
    Joint submissions on sanction were filed, dated 19 March 2020. Supplementary submissions were filed, dated 25 August 2020, relating to the date of operation of the proposed orders.
  2. [48]
    The parties submitted that the Tribunal may proceed on the basis that the facts described as agreed in the statement of agreed facts are true and that the Tribunal may make findings of fact consistent with those facts.[29]
  3. [49]
    The Board seeks a finding of misconduct in a professional respect pursuant to section 22F of the Act, and GLM agrees that such a finding should be made.
  4. [50]
    The parties agreed that the Tribunal should make the following orders:[30]
    1. (a)
      pursuant to section 22F of the Act, the Tribunal finds GLM engaged in misconduct in a professional respect;
    2. (b)
      pursuant to section 22E(1)(a) GLM’s registration be cancelled effective from the date of this order;
    3. (c)
      GLM not be permitted to reapply for registration to the respondent for a period of 2.5 years (30 months) effective from the date of this order;
    4. (d)
      pursuant to section 15D(1) of the Act, GLM pay to the Board costs fixed in the sum of $125,000 within 7 days of the date of this order; and
    5. (e)
      the related case number OCR 208-17 in respect of GLM’s medical unfitness, be dismissed with no order as to costs.

Comparable Cases

  1. [51]
    The joint submissions referred to the following cases, which we consider to be of particular application in this matter, as comparative to demonstrate that the jointly proposed order is appropriate in all the circumstances:
    1. (a)
      In Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin[31] which concerned the administration and dispensing of drugs to racehorses, the Tribunal found that the veterinary surgeon failed to identify a therapeutic purpose of administration of a drug called Bute Paste to a number of horses, and was ‘a deliberate departure from accepted standards’.

It was ordered that the veterinary surgeons registration be cancelled for a period of 18 months.

  1. (b)
    In Veterinary Practitioners Board (NSW) v Hughes[32] it was alleged that the veterinary surgeon had engaged in the provision of steroids to a human being and undertaken breaches of record-keeping standards especially those relating to injectable steroids.

The veterinary surgeon had 20 years’ experience as a veterinary surgeon and had vast experience working with horses.

The Tribunal ordered, by consent, that her registration be cancelled and she be prohibited from applying for registration of 12 months.

  1. (c)
    In Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Thompson[33] it was alleged that the veterinary surgeon supplied an injectable steroid to a person, and engaged in conduct that if repeated or continued, would be likely to damage the international reputation of Australia in relation to animal exports, animal welfare, animal produce or sporting events.

The matter concerned the signing of a false and misleading veterinary certificate for export of three horses to Thailand; and the supplying of injectable steroids to another individual with the intention they be smuggled out of Australia.

It was ordered that the veterinary surgeon be removed from the register of veterinary surgeons and not be permitted for reinstatement to same for a period of four years, and was also ordered to pay costs.

  1. (d)
    In Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Temmingh[34] the veterinary surgeon pleaded guilty to wilfully supplying injectable steroids, and wilfully making a false entry in a record.

The Tribunal considered the conduct as a very serious matter which involved a significant departure from accepted standards of professional conduct.

It ordered that the veterinary surgeon’s name be removed from the register and he not be permitted to reapply for reregistration for at least five years, and also ordered him to pay costs.

  1. [52]
    The parties submit that the Tribunal should perhaps place most emphasis on the case of Griffin as a proper comparative due to its recency and being toward the most serious end of the scale with respect to professional misconduct under the Act.[35]
  2. [53]
    The parties agree that GLM’s conduct is far more serious and far ranging than Doctor Griffin’s, however, GLM has not put the Board to the cost and expense of a protracted hearing (in Griffin a contested hearing lasted for 7 days), and jointly submit she should be entitled to a discount on the period of cancellation which may otherwise be applicable.[36]
  3. [54]
    The parties agree that but for GLM’s admissions, and the period of her voluntary withdrawal from practice, the period of her cancellation would have been in the vicinity of 4 years, but that GLM ought to be given a credit for her concessions, her personal circumstances, and the insight demonstrated by her.[37]

Personal Circumstances

  1. [55]
    The joint submissions canvassed the personal circumstances of GLM, which included the stressors of a marriage breakdown and financial difficulties, and noted as follows:[38]

52. What is apparent from the medical reporting is that the respondent, during the relevant period of 2016-17, was undergoing intense personal stress as a result of several significant stressors. She was likely to have been suffering from an impairment involving abuse of opioids, but that use has since reduced. While these matters in no way excuse the respondent’s conduct, they provide some explanation for its occurrence. In that regard, they are also relied upon to distinguish the respondent’s case from Thompson, where no such factors were present.

Insight

  1. [56]
    The joint submissions discuss a letter from GLM to the Board dated 24 October 2019, which states that ‘not a single day goes past’ where she has not been deeply remorseful for her actions, which the Board accepts as a genuine expression of remorse as at the date it was written.[39]
  2. [57]
    The parties submit that it is open to the Tribunal to conclude to what extent GLM has shown insight into the seriousness of her conduct, and that GLM’s insight into her conduct and behaviour is continuing to develop, and this development is reflected in her early admissions, her expression of remorse in the letter, and the further admissions now made for the purposes of resolving these proceedings without a contested hearing.[40]

Costs

  1. [58]
    The joint submissions note that the Board has been put to considerable expense since the filing of the referral on 7 December 2018, including but not limited to the review of extensive records and being required to interview and prepare witness statement evidence for 11 witnesses.[41]
  2. [59]
    The parties agree that in light of those considerations, and the level and timing of concessions made by GLM, that an order should be made by the Tribunal pursuant to section 15D(1) for GLM to pay to the Board costs fixed in the sum of $125,000.[42]

Other proceedings

  1. [60]
    The parties agree that the related proceedings in the Tribunal, OCR 208-18, as to impairment, should be dismissed with no order as to costs.[43]

Supplementary Joint Submissions as to Orders

  1. [61]
    The parties made supplementary submissions as to the operation of the orders relating to the cancellation of GLM’s registration and the period during which she is precluded from applying for registration.[44]
  2. [62]
    The parties submit that, but for the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the ability of the Tribunal to conduct hearings, the proceedings would have been the subject of a hearing and of orders which may have been operative at or about 25 August 2020.[45]
  3. [63]
    The parties propose that, to recognise the delay caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the impact on GLM, that the orders concerning GLM’s cancellation and prohibition against re-application for registration be effective from 1 July 2020, rather than the date of the Tribunal’s anticipated orders.

Discussion

  1. [64]
    The Tribunal has considered the joint submissions of the parties. In a disciplinary matter, it is the role of the Tribunal to form its own independent view as to substantiation and sanction, however the views of a professional body and any joint submissions are given considerable weight, and are not lightly departed from.
  2. [65]
    The Tribunal noted as to joint submissions in Medical Board of Australia v Martin[46] as follows:

[91] The parties have jointly proposed a sanction. The Tribunal ought not to depart from a proposed sanction agreed between the parties unless it falls outside of the permissible range of sanction for the conduct[47], bearing in mind that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is protective rather than punitive.[48]

[92] In NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission[49], Burchett and Kiefel JJ referred to the important public policy involved in a court (or Tribunal) not departing from agreed sanctions which are within a permissible range in all the circumstances of the case. That public policy identified was in not jeopardising the beneficial consequences of potentially lengthy and complex litigation being concluded with an acknowledgement of wrong doing and agreement as to an appropriate sanction for the conduct. Their Honours observed that such beneficial consequences could be jeopardised if parties “…were to conclude that proper settlements were clouded by unpredictable risks”.

[93] Whilst those observations were made in the conduct of a consumer protection litigation, they are, in my opinion, apposite to disciplinary proceedings such as these. It would be an unfortunate consequence, detrimental to the system of just and timely resolution of proceedings of this kind, facilitated as they are by the encouragement of parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution, if the parties were to conclude that proper agreements reached might be upset by the Tribunal simply taking a different view of what may be an appropriate sanction in a particular matter. This is particularly so given that a party proposing the agreed sanction will be a National Board charged with the functions of registering suitably qualified and competent persons in the relevant health profession; imposing conditions on their registration; and developing and approving appropriate standards, codes and guidelines for the health profession.

  1. [66]
    GLM advised the Board in writing, on 12 August 2017, that she declared that she had been pronounced as medically unfit by her doctor and was therefore placing herself under a voluntary suspension as a practising veterinary surgeon.[50]
  2. [67]
    On 16 August 2018, GLM voluntarily signed an undertaking to, amongst other things:[51]
    1. (a)
      immediately cease practising as a veterinary surgeon;
    2. (b)
      surrender all medicines and poisons in her possession other than those prescribed to her by her doctor; and
    3. (c)
      not direct any veterinary surgeons to conduct acts of veterinary science for the treatment of patients or animals with any medicines and poisons.

Substantiation

  1. [68]
    The material that has been provided to the Tribunal is voluminous and detailed. Together with the statement of agreed facts and the joint submissions on sanction, an unchallenged and clear set of circumstances and behaviour is apparent.
  2. [69]
    We will refer to each of the grounds in turn.
  3. [70]
    Ground (a) is that GLM was habitually drunk and addicted to a deleterious drug.
  4. [71]
    Specific instances as to alcohol consumption were agreed that on 27 November 2017 GLM performed a caesarean on a dog after having consumed upwards of 10 shots of alcohol at a local hotel; and on November 2017 conducted surgery on a German Shepherd and delivered puppies from a French Bulldog while under the influence of alcohol. GLM agreed with the description that she had been ‘habitually drunk’.
  5. [72]
    It was specifically agreed that GLM in May 2017 consumed cocaine prior to a consultation; that she ordered Panadeine Forte for her personal use from about 2012; and on numerous occasions wrote prescriptions to obtain that drug for her personal use from the local pharmacy. It was also agreed that she had conducted three surgical procedures while under the influence of unknown drugs and a Fentanyl patch. GLM agreed with the description that she was ‘addicted to a deleterious drug’.
  6. [73]
    Ground (b) is that GLM signed a certificate, notice, report or like document that was incomplete or misleading in a material respect.
  7. [74]
    It was specifically agreed that GLM falsified tax invoices by falsely representing that another veterinary surgeon performed a veterinary procedure, or when no procedures were undertaken the person, or when no clinical reports were prepared, or for instances when she conducted procedures and stated they have been conducted by another veterinary surgeon. GLM agreed with the description of signing a document that was incomplete or misleading.
  8. [75]
    Ground (c) is that GLM was negligent in the practice of her profession.
  9. [76]
    It was specifically agreed that GLM made a mistake on or about 2 August 2017 in calculating the dose of Toltrazuril (Baycox) which she gave to a French Bulldog which had the potential to be lethal. GLM agreed with the description of her being negligent.
  10. [77]
    Ground (d) is that GLM practiced deception in the practice of her profession.
  11. [78]
    Specific instances were given of GLM falsifying records and ordering drugs for the clinic which were actually for her personal use. GLM agreed with the description of her having practised deception.
  12. [79]
    Ground (e) is that GLM allowed a person who is not a veterinary surgeon to practice veterinary science.
  13. [80]
    It was specifically agreed that on 31 August 2015, GLM instructed a veterinary nurse to perform an act of veterinary science in euthanising a greyhound. GLM agreed with the description of her allowing a person to conduct veterinary science.
  14. [81]
    Ground (f) is that GLM conducted a veterinary practice at premises other than approved premises.
  15. [82]
    It was specifically agreed that between 2012 and 2017 a house call practice was conducted by GLM and her employees and/or agents using three vehicles and a horse crush trailer that were not approved as veterinary premises. GLM agreed with the description of her conducting a veterinary practice is at premises other than approved premises.
  16. [83]
    Having regard to the specific instances identified in the material, and the acceptance by GLM of the disciplinary grounds, the Tribunal accepts that the grounds for disciplinary action as set out by the Board in the application are made out in full.
  17. [84]
    Do the grounds constitute ‘misconduct in a professional respect’? The meaning of the expression ‘misconduct in a professional respect’ was extensively discussed in Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin.[52] The test that was applied was whether the veterinary surgeons practice or conduct as a veterinary surgeon fell below the standard expected by his professional peers and the public.[53]
  18. [85]
    We are satisfied that the practice and conduct of GLM would readily be seen as falling below the standard expected by her professional peers and the public, having regard to the dangers presented to the animals being treated, and to the fraudulent manner of her conduct, and that these clearly constitute misconduct in a professional respect pursuant to section 22F of the Act.
  19. [86]
    We find that GLM engaged in misconduct in a professional respect.

Sanction

  1. [87]
    The Tribunal discussed the purpose of sanction in Griffin as follows:[54]

It is settled law that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to punish but to maintain standards and public confidence in the profession and to protect the public.[55]

  1. [88]
    The joint submissions on sanction canvas four comparable decisions involving the Board in relation to sanction – Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin;[56] Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Brown;[57] Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v O'Flahert;y[58] Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Macintosh.[59]
  2. [89]
    It submitted that the Tribunal should perhaps place most emphasis on the case of Griffin as a proper comparative due to its recency and being toward the most serious end of the scale with respect to professional misconduct under the act.[60]
  3. [90]
    The conduct in Griffin involved the dispensing of drugs to racehorses in a deliberate departure from accepted standards. The Tribunal ordered the doctor Griffin’s registration be cancelled for a period of 18 months.
  4. [91]
    The joint submissions also referred to a New South Wales matter of Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Thompson[61]  involving allegations that a doctor supplied an injectable steroid to a person and engaged in conduct that if repeated or continue to be likely to damage the international reputation of Australia in relation to animal exports, animal welfare, animal produce or sporting events. The Tribunal in the matter ordered that Dr. Thompson be removed from the register of veterinary surgeons are not be permitted for reinstatement the same for a period of four years.
  5. [92]
    We consider that the conduct of GLM is more pervasive and crosses more boundaries of proper conduct than the conduct of Doctor Griffin. GLM has displayed dishonesty, negligence, and behaviour that is a danger to the welfare of animals that are brought into her care.
  6. [93]
    The Tribunal accepts that a cancellation of registration, and a period of prohibition before reapplying for re-registration of 3 to 5 years would be applicable on the grounds set out in the application, in the absence of mitigating factors.
  7. [94]
    We accept that there are significant mitigating factors in this matter, having regard to GLM’s personal circumstances which impacted upon her mental health, her expressions of remorse, and her admissions which have reduced the extent of the hearing.
  8. [95]
    Taking the mitigating factors into account, we accept that an appropriate sanction is that GLM’s registration be cancelled, and that a period of 2 ½ years should apply before she would be able to reapply for registration, as submitted by the parties.
  9. [96]
    The joint submission provides for a period to be effective before GLM could apply for registration again. An order providing for the imposition of an effective period was made by the Tribunal in Veterinary Surgeons Board v Griffin.[62] We adopt that practice in this matter, particularly having regard to a joint submission having been made as to such an order.
  10. [97]
    This matter has been highly protracted, noting that:
    1. (a)
      GLM voluntarily ceased practice on 12 August 2017.
    2. (b)
      The application for a disciplinary proceeding was filed in the Tribunal on 20 December 2019,
    3. (c)
      Joint submissions were filed on 19 March 2020
    4. (d)
      Direction 2 given on 25 August 2020 directed that the matter would be determined on the papers after 31 August 2020
    5. (e)
      Supplementary joint submissions were filed on 26 August 2020
    6. (f)
      Further directions as to the holding of a directions hearing were given on 18 January 2022, and
    7. (g)
      Directions were given on 3 March 2022 for the matter to be heard and determined on the papers.
  11. [98]
    The determination of this matter has been delayed by the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic upon the operations of the Tribunal. We accept the submission made by the parties that the period of time taken for determination of the application should be taken into account in considering the operative period of our orders.
  12. [99]
    There had been a protracted period of time from the filing of the joint submissions on 19 March 2020 until the holding of the Directions Hearing on 25 August 2020, which coincides with the imposition of restrictions upon the Tribunal’s operation at that time due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
  13. [100]
    We consider that in the normal course of events, it could have been expected that a Directions Hearing would have been held within perhaps 3 months after the filing of the joint submissions; and a determination on the papers to have been made perhaps another 3 months after that – which suggests that a determination could have been expected, in the normal course of events, about 6 months after the filing of the joint submissions.
  14. [101]
    The joint submissions were filed on 19 March 2020. We consider that it could have been expected in the usual course that a determination would have been made by about six months after that, which is 19 September 2020.
  15. [102]
    We accept the intent of the further joint submissions that the date of orders made under this decision should be effective from an earlier date, in the circumstances, rather than from the date of this decision. We consider that the appropriate date for the orders to be effective from is 19 September 2020.
  16. [103]
    If GLM were to apply for registration, the Board will have regard to her current fitness to practice as a veterinary surgeon at that time, and it may be anticipated that the Board would then require suitable reassurance as to her suitability to practise.
  17. [104]
    We do not seek to pre-empt the considerations that the Board may make at the time of any such application for registration, but draw attention to the practice which is commonly adopted in disciplinary matters involving teachers, as to requiring assessment by a psychiatrist as to the teacher’s suitability to work in the role. An example of such conditions can be found in Queensland College of Teachers v BYJ.[63]
  18. [105]
    The costs incurred by the Board in the amount of $125,000 are very substantial, but have been accepted by GLM as a substantiated cost, and she has agreed to payment of that amount.
  19. [106]
    The Board has undertaken extensive investigation, and devoted considerable time to this matter, and we accept that costs of the Board of $125,000 are reasonable, and that it is appropriate that GLM pay these as part of the orders this matter.
  20. [107]
    The supplementary joint submissions provided for payment of the costs within 7 days of the date of the order. As considerable time has passed since the making of those submissions, the financial situation of GLM may have altered, and we do not consider it appropriate to mandate that the costs be paid within 7 days as submitted.
  21. [108]
    We will make an order that the costs be paid, which makes them due and owing as at the date of the order, but leaves open the arrangements for payment to be made between GLM and the Board having regard to her current situation as it may be.
  22. [109]
    Case number OCR208-17 is a related matter, and involves an Application or referral – disciplinary proceeding by the Board, and seeks orders that GLM show cause why her name should not be removed from the register of veterinary surgeons.
  23. [110]
    Directions were given in OCR 208-17 on 9 July 2019 that it was held in abeyance pending the final determination of this matter. There is no utility in proceeding further in OCR 208-17, and we will make separate orders in that matter that it be dismissed with no order as to costs, as proposed by the joint submissions.
  24. [111]
    In accordance with the above discussion, we make the following orders:
    1. (a)
      The Tribunal finds that GLM has engaged in misconduct in a professional respect pursuant to section 22F of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld).
    2. (b)
      The name of GLM is to be removed from the register of veterinary surgeons pursuant to section 22E(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld).
    3. (c)
      GLM may not reapply to the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland for registration until 19 March 2023, being a period of 2.5 years (30 months) from 19 September 2020.
    4. (d)
      GLM is to pay to the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland costs fixed in the sum of One Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00) pursuant to s 15D(1) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld).
    5. (e)
      Publication is prohibited of:
      1. the contents of a document or thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal; and
      2. the hearing before the Tribunal; and
      3. any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal,

to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of the respondent (including by way of publication of the respondent’s name, the name of any of her family members, and the publication of the name of the respondent’s veterinary practice and its location), pursuant to section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

Footnotes

[1]Statement of Agreed Facts [21 – 23].

[2]Ibid [24 -26].

[3]Ibid [27-28].

[4]Ibid [29].

[5]Ibid [31].

[6]Ibid [34].

[7]Ibid [35].

[8]Ibid [36].

[9]Ibid [37] to [42].

[10]Ibid [43].

[11]Ibid [47].

[12]Ibid [49 -50].

[13]Ibid [52].

[14]Ibid [54].

[15]Ibid [54].

[16]Ibid [55].

[17]Ibid [61-63].

[18]Ibid [64-65].

[19]Ibid [70].

[20]Ibid [71].

[21]Ibid [72].

[22]Ibid [73].

[23]Ibid [74-76]

[24]Ibid [5-6]

[25]Ibid [78 to 90]

[26]Ibid [91]

[27]Report of Doctor Yoxall, dated p 30.

[28]Ibid p 31.

[29]Joint Submissions on Sanction [30].

[30]Ibid [36].

[31][2017] QCAT 93.

[32][2013] NSWADT 313.

[33][2007] NSWADT 107.

[34][2004] NSW ADT 186.

[35]Op Cit [44].

[36]Ibid [45].

[37]Ibid [46].

[38]Ibid [52].

[39]Ibid [55]-[56], [59].

[40]Ibid [60].

[41]Ibid [68].

[42]Ibid [69].

[43]Ibid [75].

[44]Supplementary Joint Submissions on Sanction, filed 26 August 2020.

[45]Ibid [5].

[46][2013] QCAT 376.

[47]Compare Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 619.

[48]Ooi v Medical Board of Queensland [1997] 2 Qd R 176.

[49](1996) 71 FCR 285 at 290-291.

[50]Joint submissions on sanction [4].

[51]Ibid [5].

[52][2016] QCAT 380.

[53]Ibid [561].

[54]Ibid [44].

[55]Ibid, Footnote 64: See Pillai’s case at 207. See also Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593 at 597, and Medical Board of Australia v North [2012] QCAT 546 at [14].

[56][2017] QCAT 93.

[57][2016] QCAT 234.

[58][2016] QCAT 8.

[59][2010] QCAT 601.

[60]Joint submissions on sanction [44].

[61][2007] NSWADT 107 .

[62][2017] QCAT 93.

[63][2018] QCAT 107

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v GLM

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v GLM

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 337

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Paratz AM, Baxendell, Grigg

  • Date:

    13 Sep 2022

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
Australia Competition and Consumer Commission v Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 619
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] FCA 619
Cite 2 - [2002] FCA 619
Hardcastle v Commissioner of Police (1984) 53 ALR 593
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1984) 53 ALR 593
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 376
Medical Board of Australia v North [2012] QCAT 546
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 546
NW Frozen Foods v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 71 FCR 285
Cite 2 - (1996) 71 FCR 285
Ooi v Medical Board of Queensland[1997] 2 Qd R 176; [1996] QCA 530
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1997] 2 Qd R 176
Cite 2 - [1997] 2 Qd R 176
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BYJ [2018] QCAT 107
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 107
Veterinary Practitioners Board (NSW) v Hughes [2013] NSWADT 313
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] NSWADT 313
Cite 2 - [2013] NSWADT 313
Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Auld [2018] QCAT 447
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 447
Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Brown [2016] QCAT 234
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 234
Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin [2016] QCAT 380
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 380
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 380
Cite 3 - [2016] QCAT 380
Cite 4 - [2016] QCAT 380
Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v MacIntosh [2010] QCAT 601
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 601
Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v O'Flaherty [2016] QCAT 8
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 8
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 8
Veterinary Surgeons Board v Griffin [2017] QCAT 93
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 93
Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 93
Cite 3 - [2017] QCAT 93
Cite 4 - [2017] QCAT 93
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Soemartopo [2007] NSWADT 107
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] NSWADT 107
Cite 2 - [2007] NSWADT 107
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Temmingh [2004] NSWADT 186
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] NSWADT 186
Cite 2 - [2004] NSWADT 186
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Thompson [2007] NSWADT 186
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] NSWADT 186

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Aarn [2023] QCAT 2552 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.