Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Health Ombudsman v McDonald - [2025] QCAT 170

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

Health Ombudsman v McDonald[2025] QCAT 170

Health Ombudsman v McDonald[2025] QCAT 170

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v McDonald [2025] QCAT 170

PARTIES:

director of proceedings on behalf of the health ombudsman

(applicant)

v

faith elizabeth mcdonald

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR037-23

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judge Dann, Deputy President

Assisted by:

Ms D Anderson

Mr S Brimstone

Mr K Murphy

ORDERS:

IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:

  1. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
  2. Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the Tribunal reprimands the respondent.
  3. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the Tribunal disqualifies the respondent from applying for registration for a period of four (4) years from the date of this order.
  4. Pursuant to section 107(4)(b) of the HO Act, the Tribunal prohibits the practitioner from providing any mental health, psychological or counselling services until she obtains registration as a registered health practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) or a corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia. 

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

  1. The interim non-publication order made on 4 October 2024 is discharged.
  1. Pursuant to s 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), publication of:
    1. the contents of a document or other thing filed in or produced to the Tribunal;
    2. evidence given before the Tribunal;
    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:

  1. a party to a proceeding under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (‘DFVP Act’);
  2. a witness in a proceeding under the DFVP Act; or
  3. a child concerned in a proceeding under the DFVP Act;

save as provided for by the terms of this order and save as is necessary for the parties to engage in and progress these proceedings, or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings, and for the Applicant to perform its statutory functions under the HO Act.

  1. Any material affected by the non-publication order shall not be copied or inspected without an order of the Tribunal, except by:
    1. a judicial member;
    2. a tribunal member;
    3. an associate to a judicial officer or tribunal member appointed under relevant legislation;
    4. any assessor appointed to assist the Tribunal;
    5. the staff of the Tribunal registry;
    6. any judicial officer, court staff or associate dealing with any appeal or review arising from these proceedings; or
    7. the parties to this proceeding or any appeal or review arising from these proceedings.
  2. The Tribunal directs that the second sentence of [101] of these reasons be redacted from the published decision.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – PSYCHOLOGISTS – where the respondent was a registered psychologist – whether the respondent breached professional boundaries by engaging in a personal and/or sexual relationship with AXB, having treated AXB between August and October 2018 – where the respondent denies AXB was ever her patient or client – where the respondent was providing care to AXB’s foster children – where AXB was vulnerable – whether the Tribunal is satisfied the Health Ombudsman has proved its case – whether the conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – whether the Tribunal should, inter alia, disqualify the respondent from applying for registration for a specified period of time – whether the Tribunal should prohibit the respondent from providing services of a certain kind for a specified period of time

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Craig v South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545, 553-555

Health Ombudsman v Bricknell [2019] QCAT 340

Health Ombudsman v Gascard [2020] QCAT 264

Medical Board of Australia v Bromeley [2018] QCAT 163

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391

Psychology Board of Australia v Garcia [2015] VCAT 128

Psychology Board of Australia v King [2016] QCAT 140

Psychology Board of Australia v Knobel (No 2) [2021] VCAT 1333

Psychology Board of Australia v Popovski [2019] VCAT 155

Psychology Board of Australia v Roychowdhury [2019] QCAT 50

Psychology Board of Australia v Shahinper [2016] QCAT 259

Psychology Board of Australia v Spring [2015] QCAT 314

Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516

R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr C Templeton instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    In this proceeding the Tribunal has to decide whether the Director of Proceedings, on behalf of the Health Ombudsman (‘Health Ombudsman’), has established her case, or some of her case, against the respondent psychologist.  The Health Ombudsman seeks findings that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (‘National Law’), being conduct within subparagraphs (a) and/or (c) of that definition, and sanctions for established conduct. 
  2. [2]
    At the time of the events the subject of the referral the respondent (who is now 47 years old) was a registered psychologist and operated her own practice at Burleigh Heads[1] at the Gold Coast.  The respondent was provisionally registered on 22 April 2013 and gained general registration in 2018.[2]  The respondent’s registration lapsed on 5 December 2024 and she has been unregistered since that day.[3]
  3. [3]
    The referral contains six allegations.  The central allegation is that the respondent breached professional boundaries by engaging in a personal and/or sexual relationship with a person, who I will refer to in these reasons as AXB, between about October 2018 and April 2020, having treated AXB between about August and October 2018 (‘allegation 1’).  The respondent admits having an on and off intimate and romantic relationship with AXB from about April 2019 until January 2020,[4] but denies AXB was ever her patient or client.
  4. [4]
    The remaining allegations can be summarised as:
    1. The respondent failed to make clinical records for treating AXB between about 16 August and 28 October 2018 (‘allegation 2’);
    2. The respondent dishonestly claimed Medicare benefits and aided dishonest claims on private health insurance between June and September 2018 by issuing invoices recording that the services were provided to AXB, when they were provided to AXB’s nephew, who I will refer to as TB, who was in foster care with AXB and AXB’s then partner, who I will refer to as CXT (‘allegation 3’);
    3. The respondent failed to maintain professional boundaries because between about October 2018 and April 2020 she engaged in the intimate personal and/or sexual relationship with AXB, who was a close personal relation of two of her patients, TB and RB (TB’s younger sibling) (‘allegation 4’);
    4. That on an unknown date or dates, the respondent dishonestly created false clinical records representing that she had provided psychological services to TB and/or RB when in fact she had not (‘allegation 5’); and
    5. That on or about 11 December 2020, the respondent deliberately caused information which was false and/or misleading to be provided to the Office of the Health Ombudsman (‘OHO’) (‘allegation 6’).
  5. [5]
    In her response, the respondent denied all the allegations apart from some nonspecific partial acceptance concerning some unidentified parts of allegation three.  

Should the Tribunal proceed in the respondent’s absence?

  1. [6]
    The respondent did not appear at the oral hearing.
  2. [7]
    The Tribunal may decide a matter in the absence of a person where that person does not attend the hearing and the Tribunal is satisfied the person has been given notice of the hearing.[5]
  3. [8]
    The respondent emailed the Tribunal, copying in the applicant, on 4 April 2023 advising she was representing herself and that she had created a particular email address that day for all correspondence regarding the referral.  The written notice of listing dated 24 March 2025 advising the parties that the hearing of the referral was set down for 31 March 2025 was sent to the respondent by email to that email address.[6]
  4. [9]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that it can proceed to hear and decide the referral in the respondent’s absence.  The Tribunal is fortified in that view where:
    1. Directions were made in late November 2024 requiring the respondent to advise the Tribunal and the Health Ombudsman by email by 10 December 2024 whether she wished to participate further in proceedings and that if she did not communicate in accordance with that direction, the Health Ombudsman would be directed to file written submissions and the matter would be listed for a half-day hearing as soon as practicable after 31 January 2025;
    2. The respondent did not advise the Tribunal of her intention to be involved further in the proceeding in accordance with that direction and has not communicated with the Tribunal since that direction was made;
    3. Prior to that direction being made, the respondent had been directed, since 8 December 2023, to file any material she intended to rely on at a hearing, but she filed no material at any time;
    4. The parties were advised by email in February 2025 that the matter would be listed for final hearing on 31 March 2025, with formal notice to follow, and the respondent did not respond to that email.

What law applies to the referral?

  1. [10]
    The referral proceeds before the Tribunal pursuant to sections 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’).
  2. [11]
    The Tribunal is exercising original jurisdiction.[7]  The Health Ombudsman has the burden of proof for each of the allegations.  Because of the potential ramification to the respondent of adverse findings, the Tribunal may only find that the respondent engaged in the alleged conduct and that it should be characterised as professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct if it is satisfied of these matters according to the standard of proof articulated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (‘Briginshaw’).[8]
  3. [12]
    There are multiple allegations.  They are not the same, and it does not necessarily follow that proving one allegation means each other allegation is also proved.  The Tribunal must consider each allegation separately and determine on the evidence relevant to that allegation whether it is proved to the Briginshaw standard.  However, because several of the allegations rely on the existence of a relationship of practitioner and client, if the treating relationship is established, that will provide support for establishing a number of the allegations.
  4. [13]
    Further, there is no obligation on the respondent to provide any evidence, either by giving or calling evidence.  Whilst the respondent did not attend the oral hearing of the matter, she has provided numerous submissions (some with attachments) through solicitors then acting for her in the investigation prior to the referral commencing and in proceedings for immediate action, offering explanations for certain sets of events and responses to compulsory notices.[9]  The Tribunal has had regard to the material she has provided, however, in providing that material, she has not assumed any burden of proof.  The Tribunal must consider all the evidence before it and if, after doing so, the Tribunal is satisfied the matters the Health Ombudsman alleges are established on the Briginshaw standard, then the allegations will be proven and any finding of professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct can be made.  
  5. [14]
    The Tribunal must observe the rules of natural justice,[10] is not bound by the rules of evidence[11] and may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate.[12]
  6. [15]
    As to acting on the substantial merits of the case and the role of the rules of evidence in Tribunals, Evatt J (in dissent) in R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott[13] said:[14]

… the Tribunal did not act “according to substantial justice”.  This is the overriding statutory command, […].  Some stress has been laid by the present respondents upon the provision that the Tribunal is not, in the hearing of appeals, “bound by any rules of evidence”.  Neither it is.  But this does not mean that all rules of evidence may be ignored as of no account.  After all, they represent the attempt made, through many generations, to evolve a method of inquiry best calculated to prevent error and elicit truth.  No tribunal can, without grave danger of injustice, set them on one side and resort to methods of inquiry which necessarily advantage one party and necessarily disadvantage the opposing party.  In other words, although rules of evidence, as such, do not bind, every attempt must be made to administer “substantial justice”.

What information is before the Tribunal?

  1. [16]
    AXB died between 24 and 26 June 2020.[15]  The respondent admits to having a romantic relationship with AXB commencing around April 2019 and ending in around January 2020.[16] The Health Ombudsman’s case that:
    1. AXB had a treating relationship with the respondent commencing in August 2018 and ongoing to approximately the end of October 2018 or into November 2018; and
    2. for the period from approximately October 2018 to approximately April 2020 that AXB had an intimate personal and/or sexual relationship with the respondent

is circumstantial. 

  1. [17]
    The Health Ombudsman submits the proof of the treating relationship arises on the basis of:
    1. The hearsay record by one of the Health Ombudsman’s investigators of an interview with AXB;
    2. A statement from CXT, AXB’s former partner;
    3. Statements from other witnesses (AXB’s best friend and two treating doctors from the hospital where AXB had back surgery);
    4. Records from Services Australia as to dates when the respondent provided services to TB and RB (the two foster children in the care of AXB and CXT);
    5. Records in CXT’s diary of AXB having appointments, on some occasions noted to be with a person with the same first name as the respondent;
    6. Mobile phone data records.  Some of them go to location, placing AXB’s mobile phone in the general vicinity of the respondent’s workplace at times consistent with appointments or at other locations consistent with other information as to the respondent’s whereabouts.  This is significant in that AXB lived some considerable distance from the respondent’s workplace.[17]  Others of them go to the frequency with which the respondent’s number and AXB’s number exchanged communications with each other;
    7. Text message exchanges at various times between the respondent and CXT, the respondent and AXB and AXB and CXT;
    8. Records from health providers which include invoices from the respondent for services rendered, hospital records and records from general practitioners;
    9. Daycare records for the two children; and
    10. An oral record of a telephone complaint made to the Health Ombudsman by the respondent in connection with AXB’s treatment in hospital after back surgery in October 2018.
  2. [18]
    Broadly, a number of these same circumstances support the Health Ombudsman’s contention that the personal relationship commenced in approximately October 2018.
  3. [19]
    The Health Ombudsman submits that where the respondent has provided explanations that challenge its contentions as to the true circumstances, these explanations should be rejected, when other accounts and contemporaneous records are considered.
  4. [20]
    Approximately one week before AXB died, AXB spoke by telephone with an investigator from the Health Ombudsman and arranged an interview by telephone.   AXB and the investigator spoke on 22 June 2020 for two hours and 43 minutes.  The telephone call was not recorded because of technical difficulties.[18]  The investigator has deposed that her manual notes are not a verbatim transcript of what AXB said to her, but they are an accurate record of the substance of what AXB said to her.[19]  The investigator received four emails from AXB on 23 June 2020 attaching various materials.  The investigator drafted a statement for AXB’s consideration based on the telephone interview, and emailed the draft to AXB on 24 June 2020, but AXB did not sign it before dying.  The investigator has sworn an affidavit which contains the statement with her additions from her memory.[20]
  5. [21]
    The Tribunal proceeds on the basis that:
    1. The investigator’s notes are made contemporaneously with her interview of AXB;
    2. Aspects of AXB’s account are, by reference to contemporaneous records, chronologically inaccurate.  An example of this is that AXB dates the treating relationship between the practitioner and AXB’s foster children as commencing in April 2018, yet the contemporaneous records date it as commencing at about June 2018.[21]  The Tribunal finds it unsurprising that this is so when the interview is being taken over the phone approximately two years after the events about which AXB is speaking.  The Tribunal does not regard this type of inconsistency as reflecting negatively on AXB’s account of the events;
    3. It acknowledges AXB was suffering from a number of mental health disorders and hospital admissions throughout the period, which may make matters of recall of precise chronology difficult.  There is no evidence that these matters, of themselves, make the core of AXB’s account that there was a treating relationship and a personal relationship unreliable or incapable of acceptance;
    4. The core aspect of AXB’s account, that AXB had a treating relationship with the practitioner gains weight by virtue of a number of matters apart from AXB’s account.  One is that it is supported by CXT’s account that this was occurring.  Another is that there is a significant amount of other contemporaneous material that supports the core aspect of this allegation.  This includes:
      1. records of appointments for AXB with the respondent in CXT’s electronic diary;
      2. evidence of other treating health practitioners as to what they observed or were told by the respondent;
      3. entries in contemporaneously recorded notes of other registered health practitioners that AXB had told them AXB was being treated by a psychologist;
      4. charges to Medicare and private health funds by the respondent for services rendered to AXB; and
      5. that even though AXB lived a significant distance from the respondent’s workplace, location data from an analysis of telephone records puts AXB’s mobile in the same general location as the respondent’s workplace at times which were consistent with records suggesting AXB was attending an appointment with the respondent.
  6. [22]
    In addition to these records, there are a number of representations in writing and orally by the respondent to third parties that she was AXB’s treating practitioner in the period from August to October 2018.
  7. [23]
    The first of these is an email from the respondent to AXB’s general practitioner on 23 August 2018.  It opened with the words:

Dear Dr [name of General Practitioner],

As you are aware, I am [AXB’s] treating psychologist.  At my last session with [AXB] on 21 August 2018, [AXB] presented with additional problems that I believe you should be acutely aware of.

[…]

  1. [24]
    After setting out details about AXB’s various issues, which includes references to back pain and the upcoming surgery, the email states:

I have continued to see [AXB] and [TB] while I have waited for the additional MHCP for the final sessions, however have not charged either of them for my service …[22]

  1. [25]
    The respondent’s explanation, provided in a submission in the investigation, was that:[23]
    1. she admitted she misrepresented herself as AXB’s treating psychologist;
    2. her driving motivation was the welfare of her client TB.  She was concerned that further financial stress for the family or further deterioration in AXB’s health would likely result in TB being moved to a different carer which she thought would be detrimental to his wellbeing; and
    3. the night before writing the email, she suffered a seizure when she hit her head which contributed to her feelings of disorientation, drowsiness and general malaise caused her to not properly consider the repercussions of her actions in making the ill-considered decision to misrepresent herself as AXB’s treating psychologist with the motive of helping TB.
  2. [26]
    The other evidence chronologically relevant to assessing the representation in this email and the respondent’s submission is:
    1. the Medicare Patient History Report for AXB records that the respondent billed Medicare Items for services provided to AXB on ten dates between 23 June 2018 and 16 September 2018, including for a consultation on Thursday 16 August 2018;[24]
    2. AXB told the investigator that her first appointment with the respondent was ‘at 5pm on a Wednesday or a Thursday’;
    3. CXT, who told the investigator she noted most of AXB’s appointments in her calendar unless they were arranged last minute[25] has a diary entry for 16 August to the effect ‘[AXB] appt [the first name of the respondent]’[26].  CXT’s evidence also is that AXB asked her around August 2018 if she minded if AXB also started seeing the respondent on her own, which CXT supported.[27]  Sessions between AXB and the respondent were usually booked after work during the week, or sometimes on the weekend after TB and RB;[28]
    4. there are no records in the respondent’s clinical notes for either TB or RB having attended a session on this day.  The daycare records record that each child was signed into daycare at 7:44am by CXT and signed out of daycare by CXT at 5:03pm on 16 August 2018;[29]
    5. AXB’s phone records indicate that AXB was in the vicinity of the Burleigh Heads exchange at 4:25pm and again at 5:36pm;[30]
    6. an email from CXT to the respondent dated 23 August 2018 at 1:13pm commenced: ‘Hi [name of respondent], I know [AXB] is now your patient.  I am very worried about her …’.[31]  The respondent responded at 2:05pm that same day simply saying ‘Thanks for getting in touch’;[32]
    7. Shortly thereafter, at 3:17pm that same day, the respondent sent the email referred to at paragraph [23] to AXB’s general practitioner;
    8. The respondent’s clinical notes include a note dated 23 August 2018 which provides relevantly:[33]

[AXB] – Text ([TB’s] carer)

Text from AXB stating she is at GCUH.

They have discharged her.

V concerned.

Will email GP.

Attempted to call [AXB]. Left msg…

(Emphasis added).

  1. [27]
    On 24 August 2018, AXB’s general practitioner wrote to the respondent thanking her for seeing AXB for opinion and management under the mental health care plan and noting AXB would like to use the remainder of the sessions with the respondent at this time.[34]
  2. [28]
    The difficulty with the respondent’s explanation is that it does not logically explain how there was a claim for Medicare services provided to AXB for 16 August 2018, how CXT came to have a record in her calendar for an appointment for AXB on that day, the absence of any records for either child (each of whom was in daycare for the entire day) or how AXB’s phone records placed AXB’s phone in the vicinity of the respondent’s practice at a time that is consistent with AXB having a clinical session with the respondent that day.  This contemporaneous evidence is all inconsistent with the respondent’s account but consistent with AXB’s account that she attended a session with the respondent, who was her treating psychologist.
  3. [29]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that the consultation on 16 August 2018 was a consultation between the respondent and AXB where the respondent was providing treatment to AXB and that it marked the commencement of the treating relationship.  It is satisfied that it should accept the respondent’s representation that she was AXB’s psychologist, as she wrote to AXB’s general practitioner on 23 August 2018.
  4. [30]
    The next of the respondent’s admissions is an oral recording of a complaint which the respondent made by telephone to the Health Ombudsman’s complaint line on 12 October 2018 at around 1:04pm.[35]  Whilst she does not identify AXB by name, the detail the respondent provided is consistent with what was occurring for AXB at the time.  The relevant part of the recording is: ‘I am a psychologist and one of my patients is in [SPH] at the moment.  On Wednesday this week – on the 10th – she had spinal surgery …’.[36]  The respondent accepts the recording is of her voice and ‘found the recording of that phone call to be alarming and a shock’.[37]  The respondent does not otherwise explain the phone call.  In that recording, the respondent describes the costs of the surgery, that she had contacted the Gold Coast University Hospital (‘GCUH’), that two weeks before the surgery AXB had attempted to commit suicide and the respondent talked about how she was going to invoke ‘Ryan’s rule’. 
  5. [31]
    These matters are significant also because, just prior to this telephone call, on that same day, the notes of the receptionist at AXB’s general practitioner’s practice record that the respondent telephoned the practice at 12:42pm that day and made the following representations:[38]

[The respondent] is currently on the way to deal with what has been happening with [AXB].  [AXB] has previously (recently) threatened suicide which has kicked all this process into gear.

[AXB] has just had surgery – currently in Private Hospital.  Was quoted for a certain about (sic) of nights and days in [Intensive Care Unit (‘ICU’)] etc.  Has now gone over those days, and is in financial hardship.

Hospital will not release [AXB], however [the respondent] has managed to organise a bed and surgeon to take over care at [GCUH].

All the current private hospital needs to do, is contact the GCUH and request the transfer – which is all ready to go.

[The respondent] is on the way into see the Private Hospital to find out what is going on, and to call ‘Ryan’s Rule’ if they are not willing to co-operate.

The family of [AXB] have taken out a large loan to fund her hospital stay – and just before surgery [AXB] lost her job.  So the transfer is definatly (sic) needed to help ensure the family does not run into any more debt than what they can afford.

[The respondent] called to have this all documented – she will be sending it all through in a report for our files also.

Contact numbers for [the respondent] regarding any questions are: [mobile number ending in 635] (work) and [mobile number ending in 690] (Personal)

  1. [32]
    Whilst the respondent denied making the phone call recorded by the general practitioner’s receptionist for a number of reasons,[39] those reasons do not stand scrutiny given:
    1. the similarities of the contents of this note of the telephone conversation with the recording of the complaint to the Health Ombudsman which the respondent accepts she made on the same day and only shortly after the time of the call to the general practice;
    2. that the phone records for the respondent’s work mobile phone reveal it was used to call the practice number at a time on that day which is shortly prior to the time on the receptionist’s note.[40]
  2. [33]
    The Tribunal is not satisfied that the respondent’s alternative explanations are credible or reliable.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the email should be assessed as a contemporaneous admission by the respondent that she was AXB’s treating psychologist at this time. 
  3. [34]
    The range and scope of this material over some months supports the inherent probability of AXB’s account that there was a treating relationship between AXB and the respondent in 2018.
  4. [35]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that AXB had a treating relationship with the respondent which commenced in or about 16 August 2018, where CXT has a record of an appointment for AXB with the respondent and shortly after that the respondent wrote the email to AXB’s general practitioner in which she stated she is AXB’s treating psychologist.
  5. [36]
    I turn now to address the allegations individually.

Allegation 1 – failing to maintain professional boundaries with a patient

The Health Ombudsman’s allegation

  1. [37]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges in the referral that, between about October 2018 and April 2020, the respondent breached professional boundaries by engaging in an intimate personal and/or sexual relationship with AXB.
  2. [38]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges that AXB was the respondent’s patient between about August 2018 and October 2018, providing psychological services to AXB on or about:[41]
    1. 16 August 2018;
    2. 29 August 2018;
    3. 6 September 2018;
    4. 11 September 2018;
    5. 28 September 2018;
    6. 5 October 2018;
    7. 8 October 2018;
    8. 24 October 2018; and
    9. 28 October 2018.
  3. [39]
    As above at [29], the Tribunal has found that the session on 16 August 2018 was for AXB and marked the start of the treating relationship. 
  4. [40]
    As to the session on 29 August 2018:
    1. which was on a Wednesday, there is a Medicare record for the respondent providing AXB with services on that day;
    2. CXT has a calendar entry for 29 August 2018: ‘[AXB’s] appt with [the respondent]’ ;[42] and
    3. AXB’s phone records place her in the vicinity of the Burleigh Heads exchange at about 4:15pm on this day.[43]
  5. [41]
    In relation this day, the hearing brief also contains:
    1. The records for the daycare centre which record that TB and RB were signed in on 29 August 2018 at 11:37am and signed out at 3:36pm on each occasion by CXT;[44]
    2. An email from a medical registrar at Gold Coast Health to the respondent sent late at night on 29 August 2018 which refers to TB, who the registrar ‘met in clinic today’,[45] whilst an email from the respondent to a person who appears to be involved with childrens’ services, sent even later in the evening of 29 August 2018, refers to today being the final therapy session under the MHCP for TB and that the respondent did not add on any additional charge for travel, for the meeting which went for 2 hours and for which she only charged 1 hour.  The respondent also states AXB has used her MHCP for TB and these sessions have also expired.[46]  (Emphasis added)
  6. [42]
    The respondent’s submissions in the investigation were to the effect that she did not provide psychological services to AXB on this date, rather she used the two Medicare sessions under the respective MHCPs to cover this session,[47] however:
    1. The item which she billed for TB was for a location other than consulting rooms, whilst the item billed for AXB was for a service at consulting rooms; and
    2. This submission is inconsistent with:
      1. the contemporaneous record she created, which was that she only billed for one hour for the TB session;
      2. CXT’s contemporaneously created calendar entry for an appointment for AXB on that day; and
      3. a claim for a Medicare item for an in-consultation rooms service for AXB.
  7. [43]
    The hearing brief also contains the respondent’s voluntary acknowledgment[48] advised to the Department of Health on 26 April 2020 that services claimed for AXB under a MHCP were not provided to the person listed on the MHCP rather, the item code was used to claim for a family member which is not allowed under Medicare MHCP rules.  The dates of services are 3 July 2018 (x 2), 8 July 2018, 22 July 2018, 5 August 2018, 16 August 2018, 29 August 2018 and 22 September 2018.  This acknowledgment, some eighteen months after the event, is inconsistent with the contemporaneously sent email of 29 August 2018.
  8. [44]
    Weighing all the evidence, notwithstanding the acknowledgment, the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent had an appointment with AXB this day for her to provide AXB with treatment and that she did so.
  9. [45]
    As to 6 September 2018:
    1. the session was on a Thursday and there is a Medicare record for the respondent providing AXB with services on that day;
    2. CXT has a calendar entry for 6 September 2018: ‘[AXB] appt 4.00pm’;[49]
    3. the respondent has no records for TB or RB having an appointment with her on this day;
    4. AXB’s phone records indicate AXB was in the vicinity of the Burleigh Heads exchange at 2:30pm, 3:49pm, 5:39pm and 6:59pm.[50]
  10. [46]
    The respondent denies providing psychological services to AXB on this date.[51] 
  11. [47]
    The contemporaneous records, including the bulk billing of a consultation to Medicare, support the Health Ombudsman’s claim that AXB had a consultation on that day with the respondent, and the Tribunal finds that there was.
  12. [48]
    As to 11 September 2018:
    1. CXT has a calendar entry for 11 September 2018: ‘[AXB] appt 4.00pm ’[52] which was a Tuesday;
    2. the respondent rendered an invoice to AXB dated 26 September 2018 which included a charge for an appointment on this day;[53]
    3. AXB’s phone records indicate AXB was in the vicinity of the Burleigh Heads exchange at 3:53pm and 5:00pm;[54] and
    4. Text messages from AXB to the respondent dated 26 September 2018 record:
      1. AXB saying ‘thanks for this today.  i feel like I got more out of it than the boys…’   and asking if it is possible to put the receipt in AXB’s name so AXB ‘can claim a bit on private health’; and
      2. the respondent’s texts that she could put them all in AXB’s name and, some hours later, confirming she is sending through the invoice;[55]
    5. The childcare records demonstrate that both boys were at childcare from 7:40am to 5:22pm, signed in and out by CXT.[56] 
  13. [49]
    The respondent has clinical records dated 11 September 2018 ostensibly relating to TB[57] which have AXB’s name in brackets at the top.  These notes suggest that TB may have been present at the session as the notes provide, in part ‘… played cars/blocks.  Read Families book.  [TB] – “me hungry” (always hungry).’  The respondent also has clinical records dated 11 September 2018 for RB,[58] which record ‘session #1’ and suggest that RB was present at the consultation with the respondent.  
  14. [50]
    The Health Ombudsman notes that there are no Medicare claims for services to either child that day.[59]  The Services Australia records demonstrate:
    1. For TB, that 10 sessions with the respondent were claimed between 23 June 2018 and 1 September 2018;[60] and
    2. For RB, that seven sessions with the respondent were claimed between 3 October 2018 and 18 November 2018.[61]
  15. [51]
    AXB’s MHCP was completed on 21 June 2018 for:[62]

Referrals to be provided by GP, as required, in up to two groups of six sessions.  The need for the second group of sessions to be reviewed after the initial six sessions. 

  1. [52]
    An email from the respondent to AXB’s general practitioner dated 7 August 2018 states, in part:[63]

I have completed the first 6 sessions with [redacted] and 5 with AXB.  AXB’s next session is on Saturday 11 August [2018]…

I would like to request the additional 4 sessions for [redacted], and the additional 4 sessions for AXB ...

  1. [53]
    The first page of the respondent’s report to Child Services dated 7 August 2018[64] stated she had seen TB for seven sessions so far on the following dates: 23 June 2018 (double session), 1 July 2018 (double session), 8 July 2018 (double session), 15 July 2018 (single session), 22 July 2018 (double session), 28 July 2018 (single session) and 4 August 2018 (single session).[65]  It also includes the statement that TB will be exhausting his sessions through the MHCP very soon.[66]
  2. [54]
    It seems likely therefore that, by 11 September 2018, there were no sessions left on TB’s MHCP to be claimed on Medicare and RB did not yet have a MHCP so the absence of a claim for Medicare rebates for TB and RB may not bear on the issue.  The Tribunal notes that the respondent, in a report to RB’s general practitioner dated 24 October 2019, stated there was a single session with RB on 11 September 2018.[67]
  3. [55]
    The Tribunal is satisfied, however, that the combination of the entry in CXT’s diary, the childcare records and the location data for AXB’s phone, together with the invoice for the session in the name of AXB support the fact that the respondent had a consultation with AXB this day, even if either or both of TB and RB also did.
  4. [56]
    As to 28 September 2018:
    1. AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that on 27 September 2018 AXB was put into hospital after trying to self harm by overdosing;[68]
    2. CXT confirms she called the ambulance for AXB after AXB took ‘like a handful of painkillers’[69];
    3. An admission in the early hours of 28 September 2018 is confirmed by hospital records, on an emergency examination authority, due to taking an overdose which AXB said was to control pain.  The hospital records record that AXB told the medical officer that AXB ‘has psychologist she can trust, going to see her tomorrow’;[70]
    4. There are email exchanges between CXT and the respondent where CXT asks if AXB can get an urgent appointment for the day of 28 September 2018 and, at 5:51pm that day, the respondent emails CXT:[71]

She hasn’t arrived yet but it’s Friday and public holiday traffic.  I’ll call her at 6 to check how she’s going/if she’s moving or just stuck.  I’m not going anywhere, lots to do anyway so happy to wait all night.

  1. The respondent has a written record dated 28 September 2018 and headed with TB’s name.  It purports to record a number of matters involving the Child Safety Officer (‘CSO’) but also has a record:[72]

PC – [AXB] on way.  Arrive 5.30.  [CXT] aware CS req mtg?  Had said not sharing w/ [CXT]?  Now [CXT] aware?  CS? 

Arrived 6.15 - ? substance? alcohol? 

cancel mtg.  was wanting to drive home.  Duty of care.

Stayed, “Sobered?”  up on couch.  Req contact [CXT] advise can’t drive.

[…] Fell asleep on couch

left @ 9…

  1. The respondent issued an invoice dated 28 September 2018 to AXB for a session on this day;[73]
  2. The respondent denied providing a service to AXB this day and suggested she was meeting with AXB at the request of the Child Safety Officer after she contacted them, having received the email from CXT.  There is no explanation for the invoice in AXB’s name.
  1. [57]
    By way of undisputed other factual background, AXB was suffering significant pain and booked for back surgery in October 2018.[74]  I regard the hospital admission records of 28 September 2018 as significant.  There is no reason for them to mis-record what AXB told the medical officer about having a treating psychologist or going to see that person the next day.  They are also consistent with the request CXT was making of the respondent at about the same time.  The respondent charged for an appointment this day with AXB.  The weight of the contemporaneous documentary evidence persuades me that, despite the respondent’s denials, AXB had a consultation with the respondent this day. 
  2. [58]
    As to 5 October 2018:
    1. AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that he realised he had feelings for the respondent during a home visit from the respondent about four days prior to AXB’s back surgery, which occurred on 10 October 2018.[75]  AXB’s recall was that the respondent arrived at the house around lunchtime and brought pizza.  No one else was home, they had lunch and talked; and the respondent left about 4:00pm or 5:00pm that day.  As the respondent was leaving, AXB hugged her and asked her to come and see him in the hospital after the surgery;[76]
    2. CXT says AXB booked a last-minute session with the respondent because AXB was anxious about the upcoming surgery.  CXT went to work that day and dropped TB and RB off at daycare.  CXT called AXB at about 5:00pm and could hear the respondent’s voice in the background.  She asked AXB to pick up TB and RB and thereafter AXB sent her a text saying AXB and the respondent had picked them up.  CXT got home about 6:00pm, TB and RB were home and the respondent was leaving.  Text messages between CXT and AXB are consistent with the respondent being at AXB’s home at about 4:45pm, but the boys not being there;[77]
    3. The daycare records demonstrate that TB and RB were dropped off by CXT at 7:46am and were picked up by AXB at 5:43pm;[78] and
    4. The respondent issued an invoice to AXB for a session for AXB this day.
  3. [59]
    Whilst the respondent admits she went to AXB’s house this day, she denied in a submission that she went to AXB’s house to provide AXB with psychological therapy.  She denies she brought pizza and says she went there to provide therapy to TB and RB, producing clinical notes.  The effect of the text messages on 5 October 2018 between AXB and the respondent is that the respondent estimated she would be at AXB’s house at about 2:00pm and AXB said she was cooking and to ‘forget about maccas if u like pizza’.[79]  It seems likely therefore that AXB was mistaken about the respondent bringing pizza, but not about consuming pizza on this occasion.
  4. [60]
    The respondent produced a single page of clinical notes for TB and RB as part of TB’s notes.  No separate note was produced in RB’s files.  A report by the respondent to RB’s general practitioner dated 24 October 2018 states she had seen RB for six sessions, including on 3 and 7 October 2018, but did not refer to a session on 5 October 2018.
  5. [61]
    The Health Ombudsman submits the evidence suggests:
    1. the respondent was with AXB for around four hours, between approximately 2:00pm and 6:00pm on 5 October 2018;
    2. the respondent was with AXB, TB and RB from about 5:43pm-6:00pm which was essentially the collection from daycare and return home.
  6. [62]
    Having considered the contemporaneous records, the Tribunal accepts the Health Ombudsman’s submission, which is consistent with a number of different contemporaneous records and CXT’s evidence.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that:
    1. the time available for the respondent to have spent with TB and RB was insufficient for her to have undertaken a consultation with them on this day; and
    2. the respondent rendering an invoice to AXB for a psychological service this day is consistent with a service having been provided, in circumstances where the respondent spent in the order of four hours with AXB at AXB’s home. 
  7. [63]
    As to 8 October 2018:
    1. AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator of being worried about the impending back surgery, that AXB went to the water in Burleigh when needing to be calm and that CXT wanted the respondent to be there for psychological support so this was arranged;
    2. CXT says AXB told her AXB had arranged an appointment with the respondent at the beach to watch the sunset this day;[80]
    3. CXT says AXB later told her that AXB and the respondent kissed for the first time on this occasion;[81]
    4. Telephone location records for AXB’s phone confirm it was located around the Burleigh Heads region during the relevant period on 8 October 2018;[82]
    5. Telephone records for the respondent’s work mobile indicate that the respondent did not send a single message to AXB’s mobile phone after 5:20pm on 8 October 2018;[83] 
    6. Those same phone records for the respondent’s work mobile indicate communications with AXB’s phone in the early morning of 9 October 2018, with two voice calls of two seconds each and three SMS messages between 3:15am and 3:54am;[84]
    7. In text messages between AXB and CXT, AXB confirmed being with the respondent in the evening of 8 October 2018 at about 11:56pm;[85]
    8. CXT said that AXB arrived home at about 3:00am.  CXT said AXB told her at that time she had fallen asleep.[86]
  8. [64]
    The respondent denied this encounter occurred in submissions where she denies meeting AXB in a carpark at Burleigh.[87]  The submissions describe AXB’s account of the night – including that they walked up to a lookout, the respondent had spoken to her supervisor about having feelings for a client and had been given material to read, that the respondent admitted feelings for AXB and that the respondent kissed AXB – as ‘fanciful’[88].  The submissions set out a number of reasons for these denials, including that:
    1. AXB was walking with a cane at this time due to chronic backpain and so could not walk up a hill to a lookout;
    2. the respondent did not have a supervisor and it was illogical that a practitioner would give a speech to their client about transference and the need to avoid it whilst spending a number of hours with a client in a romantic lookout space;
    3. the respondent would not have left her dog alone as is alleged; and
    4. the claim that AXB fell asleep on the respondent’s lap is implausible because the couch is very small and the respondent could not sit still for 20 minutes, let alone 2 hours, so there is no circumstance where someone could ever go to sleep on her lap. 
  9. [65]
    The respondent stated in submissions that she did not remember exactly what happened on 8 October 2018, but is certain that it is not what was alleged by AXB as she did not have any feelings for AXB at this point.[89] 
  10. [66]
    However the next day, the respondent sent CXT a text message at approximately 5:36pm which included the words ‘Last night was pretty next level…’ and stating that she would ‘… head up [to the hospital] on Thursday if [AXB] is up for visitors …’.[90]  The respondent’s text messages to CXT also included the statement from the respondent to CXT that ‘I’m truly confident she will be all good for tomorrow. … She loves you [CXT], I think she’s just been depressed because she’s scared.’
  11. [67]
    If the respondent’s submissions are intended as a denial of meeting up with AXB at all on 8 October 2018, these submissions are rejected, given the text message of 9 October 2018 from the respondent to CXT, and the various text message exchanges late in the evening and early in the morning of 8 and 9 October 2018 respectively.
  12. [68]
    If those submissions are to the effect that there was some sort of encounter, the details of which she cannot recall, it is unclear how she cannot recall this but be certain that AXB’s account of the events is incorrect.  Her stated inability to recall what happened on this occasion but be certain that what AXB alleges did not happen, in circumstances which are extremely unusual for a professional person to find themselves in, is inherently incredible.  The respondent’s text messages to CXT suggest that the respondent and AXB spoke about aspects of AXB’s psychological state, including her feelings for CXT and her concerns about the surgery.
  13. [69]
    The Tribunal finds that AXB did meet with the respondent on 8 October 2018 to soothe her anxiety in anticipation of the impending back surgery.  For reasons which I set out below at [102] to [111], I am satisfied this encounter was broadly as AXB’s account sets out.
  14. [70]
    AXB had the back surgery, as scheduled, after admission to hospital on 10 October 2018.[91] 
  15. [71]
    AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that:
    1. the respondent visited AXB after AXB’s mother and CXT had visited;
    2. the respondent gave AXB a bag with ten presents in it;
    3. they kissed each other and AXB said to the respondent ‘I think I’m falling in love with you’; and
    4. the respondent told the doctors to change AXB’s pain medication and to give AXB ketamine.[92] 
  16. [72]
    CXT’s evidence is the respondent had messaged and called her about what to bring AXB as a present and that the respondent arrived at the hospital with the biggest gift box which had multiple things in it, including gadgets, books, hand creams, lip balms and chocolates.[93]
  17. [73]
    The respondent denied kissing AXB in hospital when no one else was around or that she started to exchange intimate phone calls and texts at this time.  She maintains she was not romantically or sexually involved with AXB at this time.[94]
  18. [74]
    CXT and AXB’s friend, Ms P, who visited her in hospital each say that the respondent started talking about the costs of the hospital and the idea that AXB would be transferred to the GCUH.[95]  CXT also says that the respondent was introducing herself to the hospital staff as AXB’s psychologist.[96]
  19. [75]
    Hospital progress note records include an entry as follows:[97]

11/10/18 1600 hrs – 1710 hrs … stable … pain controlled …Pt’s family = psychologist request the patient to be transferred to Cold Coast University Hospital

11/10/18 (1200 -1930) … 15.30:- [AXB’s] psychologist [respondent’s first name] came up to nurses station and requested to speak to intensivist.  She mentioned [AXB] has got financial issues and wants to transfer her to Gold Coast public hospital ICU … she was insisting too much to transfer her tonight in consideration to patient mental health.  [The respondent] said patient had suicidal attempt few weeks ago and she was admitted to Logan hospital …

  1. [76]
    The intensive care senior medical officer for AXB at the time of the surgery provided an affidavit in which he observed, inter alia, that:[98]
    1. He met the respondent whilst he was an Intensivist at the Sunnybank Private Hospital;
    2. He recalled treating AXB because of things which were memorable due to the adversarial relationships and very forceful dictating of the management of this patient by the respondent;
    3. Initially the respondent introduced herself to be support to the family, or support to the patient or the partner;
    4. As time went on, other dynamics started to come out, the respondent was spending a lot of time at AXB’s bedside and was very overbearing regarding AXB’s treatment;
    5. Somewhere along the line the respondent claimed to be AXB’s psychologist;
    6. At one stage the respondent asked for Schedule 8 drugs of addiction on AXB’s behalf;
    7. He asked the respondent if she was acting on behalf of the patient as care giver, partner or therapist as he found it quite difficult, from the perspective of a clinician, to ascertain in what capacity the respondent was acting, the boundaries were quite blurred, the respondent did not answer his question and after that, he had little interaction with the respondent who he perceived was avoiding him;
    8. He observed a strange power dynamic between the respondent and AXB.  AXB was very quiet and things were being advocated by the respondent;
    9. The case stuck out to him as he found it so difficult to determine the lines between the respondent and the patient and this was something out of the ordinary. 
  2. [77]
    The intensive care registrar at the time of AXB’s surgery also provided an affidavit. Her evidence included:[99]
    1. She was involved in AXB’s post operative care on 12 and 13 October 2018;
    2. She first met the respondent on 12 October 2018 whilst doing her ICU rounds.  The respondent was sitting at AXB’s bedside and she introduced herself and asked the respondent who she was.  They were a bit cagey and looking at each other saying ‘friend’ and kind of giggling.  Whilst she was walking past AXB’s bed, she observed a lot of giggling, tickling and phone traffic between AXB and the respondent, they were very tactile, not just sitting and talking;
    3. The respondent was there all day and did not leave AXB’s side;
    4. Later the respondent introduced herself as a psychologist and gave a business card to the nurses.  She was expecting the respondent to say she was AXB’s psychologist as she was so involved in every aspect of the respondent’s treatment;
    5. It is standard practice for a professional person who comes into the ICU to see an ICU patient to introduce themselves to the team, particularly the patient’s nurse and to leave a note in the patient’s record of the visit.  The respondent did not make any notes;
    6. Over two days the respondent manipulated AXB’s medical treatment and when she felt like she was not being heard or getting what she wanted, the respondent started pressing that she was a psychologist, but when asked if she was AXB’s psychologist the respondent would be evasive;
    7. She referred to the respondent as AXB’s treating psychologist in her clinical notes, because the respondent was confusing them with what her relationship was;
    8. It was an ill-defined relationship between the respondent and AXB because the respondent kept stating she was a psychologist but did not say she was AXB’s treating psychologist;
    9. The respondent was always the spokesperson for AXB, was very dominant and AXB would be submissive around the respondent.  AXB deferred everything to the respondent;
    10. When she saw AXB at night when she was alone, AXB would interact as normal, make eye contact and have appropriate conversations;
    11. The respondent caused a lot of chaos in the unit, demanding involvement in medical treatment and making continual requests for non-essential things;
    12. Manipulation of the treating professionals was occurring.  For example, the respondent would try to tell one nurse that another nurse had said AXB could have ketamine;
    13. There was a family meeting on 12 October 2018 during which the respondent was being a bully and demanding restarting a ketamine infusion for AXB, which was not medically indicated;
    14. The respondent was aggressively advocating for AXB to be transferred to GCUH, on the basis that it would be cheaper for AXB;
    15. When the surgeon arranged for a surgeon at GCUH to accept AXB, the respondent was fist pumping and hissing ‘yes’ behind the surgeon’s back; and
    16. AXB was transferred to the GCUH on 13 October 2018.
  3. [78]
    I have already referred to the statements made by the respondent in an email to AXB’s general practitioner and a telephone complaint to the Health Ombudsman on 12 October 2018 at [30] to [33] above that she was AXB’s treating psychologist as at 12 October 2018 and found this to be so. 
  4. [79]
    I have set out the evidence from the hospital personnel above at some length because it:
    1. informs the evident duality which the respondent was seeking to present at this time about her relationship with AXB, which appeared to disinterested observers as being both a personal one and a professional one; and
    2. reinforces the likelihood that the core of AXB’s account of the meeting on 8 October 2018 should be accepted.  Others, who were disinterested, observed conduct between the respondent and AXB several days later which was consistent with some sort of personal and intimate relationship having been formed by this time.
  5. [80]
    AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that the respondent visited her several times in the GCUH, bringing food and, when no one else was present, that they would kiss.  At this time they also started exchanging intimate phone calls and messages.[100]  Phone records for the respondent’s mobile phone document that the respondent’s phone was communicating daily with AXB’s phone during the hospital stay.[101]  AXB told the Health Ombudsman that CXT’s daughter got expelled from school the day of the surgery, so CXT was dealing with what was going on with her daughter a lot during this time and didn’t really notice what was happening between the respondent and AXB.[102]  CXT’s evidence is that the respondent was at the GCUH ‘all the time’.[103]  Text messages between CXT and AXB on 14 October 2018 refer to CXT telling AXB that the respondent would be with her in the GCUH from 1:00pm to 8:00pm.[104]  CXT also said that the respondent and she would talk on the phone in the evening when the respondent would leave AXB in the hospital, they would speak ‘the whole way home’ and a couple of times they stayed on the phone until the early hours of the morning.[105]  They would talk about AXB and what was best for AXB, she would ask how TB and RB were and would tell CXT things about her life.[106]
  6. [81]
    The respondent’s clinical notes suggest that TB and RB had a carer hospital visit with AXB on 18 October 2018.[107]
  7. [82]
    CXT’s evidence is that AXB was discharged from the GCUH on 20 October 2018 and after discharge, the respondent said to CXT that she needed to bring things back to a professional level and they had to reduce communication a bit, and the phone calls between CXT and the respondent stopped.[108]  Phone records for the respondent’s work mobile document the respondent’s phone communicating every day with AXB’s phone from  20 October 2018 to 2 November 2018.[109] 
  8. [83]
    AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that when she was discharged on 20 October 2018, TB had a session with the respondent, which was very professional, and that AXB found a moment to tell the respondent that the relationship could not go on to which the respondent said they definitely needed to finish up the sessions and that AXB needed to figure out how to leave CXT.[110]
  9. [84]
    The respondent’s clinical notes record a session with TB on 20 October 2018 noting it is his birthday.[111]  In her clinical notes, the respondent included:
    1. whether AXB can care for TB and RB alone;
    2. that AXB and CXT fighting in front of the children; and
    3. AXB’s evident concern of the impact CXT’s children may have on TB and RB. 
  10. [85]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges the second last session of treatment the respondent provided AXB occurred on 24 October 2018.  As to 24 October 2018:
    1. A text message exchange on 21 October 2018 between CXT and the respondent where:
      1. CXT asks if it was possible to get AXB in on Wednesday or Thursday with the respondent during school hours;[112]
      2. The respondent replies relevantly ‘Any time Wednesday, any time after 11 on Thursday.  Let me know what works for you’;[113]
      3. CST then replies relevantly: ‘could we book [AXB] in for … 9.30am Wednesday?  That way she will have the best part of the day with you for however long she can stand the pain’ and the respondent replies relevantly ‘And Wednesday 9.30am for [AXB] is fine’;[114]
    2. CXT’s calendar includes an entry for 24 October 2018 which reads ‘[AXB] Appt 9.30am’;[115]
    3. The respondent rendered an invoice to AXB for a session on this date;[116]
    4. AXB’s phone records place AXB’s phone in the vicinity of the Burleigh Heads exchange at 9:04am and 10:03am;[117]
    5. The daycare records record that TB and RB were in daycare from 7:58am to 5:44pm;[118]
    6. Progress notes by AXB’s doctor contain a record relevantly in a consultation on 25 October 2018 that ‘mood stable no further issues continues to see psychologist telecon currently’.[119]
  11. [86]
    The respondent denied seeing AXB for treatment after the surgery and that during this time she assisted to prepare AXB to leave CXT.  The respondent says a phone call with AXB on 24 October 2018 was to discuss concerns AXB had with CXT’s ability to care for TB and RB.[120]
  12. [87]
    The respondent’s work mobile phone records reflect voice calls being made to AXB’s mobile telephone on 24 October 2018 at 1:49:29pm for 18 seconds, 1:49:43 for two seconds and 6:37:38 for 1033 seconds (approximately 17 minutes).  They also show that the respondent made a three-minute telephone call to the CSO at about 1:50pm on 24 October 2018.
  13. [88]
    The respondent produced manual notes headed ‘24/10/18 – [AXB]/Niamh (CSO) [TB and RB]’[121].  It is not apparent exactly who is saying what to whom, but:
    1. matters recorded in the notes which start P/C include ‘concerns re: [TB] + [RB] MH … today is 2 weeks post op on crutches, but moving good; - when CSO calls [CXT] gets worried ([TB’s] disclosures)’;
    2. matters recorded in the notes which start P/C – CSO include ‘ongoing worries/concerns re carer capacity; [AXB] reporting [TB] scared of [CXT]; CS will speak to [AXB] re: standards of care; [AXB] seems to be protective factor, however spinal surgery – 6 month? recovery’.
  14. [89]
    It appears from an email of 24 October 2018 at 6:36:41pm that Niamh was involved with a state agency for Childrens’ Services.  The email from the respondent to her has the subject ‘Are you still in’ and says relevantly: ‘Just had a session – wanted to check in about the [B] children’. 
  15. [90]
    Thus it seems that the respondent telephoned and spoke to AXB for about 17 minutes after her email to Niamh, not before.
  16. [91]
    Relevantly, none of the telephone calls or emails involving AXB and the CSO are taking place between 9:30am and thereafter, when AXB’s appointment was booked for.  Further, all of the respondent’s mobile phone communications with AXB’s mobile phone on 24 October 2018 occur after 1:45pm.[122]
  17. [92]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that AXB had a consultation with the respondent on 24 October 2018 for her own purposes, even accepting that she and the respondent may well have spoken later in the day about TB and RB.
  18. [93]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges the final session of treatment the respondent provided AXB occurred on 28 October 2018.  As to 28 October 2018:
    1. AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that the last treatment session with AXB was on 28 October 2018.[123]  AXB said that the respondent was helping her prepare to leave CXT and that the respondent said to her that if she didn’t leave, the department was going to take TB and RB away;
    2. CXT’s calendar contains an entry for 28 October 2018 which reads ‘[AXB] appt with [respondent’s first name] 12pm’;[124]
    3. The respondent rendered an invoice to AXB for a service to AXB on 28 October 2018;[125]
    4. AXB’s phone records place her phone in the vicinity of the Burleigh Heads exchange at 11:33am, 12:33pm and 1:32pm.[126]
  19. [94]
    The respondent made notes dated 28 October 2018 which are headed: ‘[AXB] 28.10.18 – P/C re T&R’.[127]  She denied, in submissions sent on her behalf, providing any psychological services to AXB on this day.[128]  The contents of the respondent’s clinical records suggest the respondent was providing advice to AXB, as AXB alleged, on an impending separation from CXT, as they contain statements such as:[129]
    1. ‘break up – can’t be nasty, has to be alone, no kids in house’;
    2. ‘move to sister’s property to save [money]’;
    3. ‘pack things… pack childrens things’;
    4. ‘Apply for C’Link’;
    5. ‘open bank account’; and
    6. ‘create another email address’. 
  20. [95]
    Phone records for the respondent’s work mobile phone indicate the respondent sent approximately 41 SMS messages to AXB on 28 October 2018.[130]
  21. [96]
    Text messages passing between the respondent and CXT on 30 October 2018 and 1 November 2018 include messages that:
    1. The respondent messaged CXT on 30 October 2018 with a message which included: ‘… also – doing your invoices right now.  Everyone is paid up in full … I will send through 4 receipts for … and 5 more for [AXB]’;[131]
    2. CXT sent messages on 1 November 2018 which included ‘Paid up front … Single for [AXB] … Description: [AXB] S 11 Nov …’ to which the respondent replied ‘Hey [CXT] yep that looks right.  Thanks’.[132] 
  22. [97]
    The Tribunal is satisfied, from the contemporaneous records and the respondent’s clinical notes, that the respondent was providing services to AXB on 28 October 2018 as the Health Ombudsman alleged.
  23. [98]
    The Tribunal has found that a treating relationship existed between AXB and the respondent, commencing in August 2018.  The Tribunal has also found, for the foregoing reasons, that the respondent provided services to AXB on the nine occasions on the dates the Health Ombudsman alleges, concluding on 28 October 2018.
  24. [99]
    The next issue, then, is the commencement of the intimate, personal or romantic relationship.
  25. [100]
    The respondent admits she entered into a romantic relationship with AXB in April 2019[133] and that the intimate relationship continued between them until about January 2020.[134]
  26. [101]
    The relationship was described by solicitors in a written submission of 16 June 2020 to the OHO on the respondent’s behalf as ‘an “on and off” intimate and romantic relationship’ and commencing shortly after the respondent’s own personal relationship ended in March 2019.[135]  .[136]  The practitioner submitted  that AXB’s complaint was AXB’s reaction to an argument they had in March 2020.[137] 
  27. [102]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges, however, that the intimate personal and/or sexual relationship commenced in or about October 2018 by reason that:
    1. on or about 8 October 2018, AXB and the respondent went for a walk at Burleigh Beach, admitted they had feelings for each other and shared a kiss at the respondent’s office later that evening;
    2. AXB and the respondent interacted intimately with each other during AXB’s admission in the Sunnybank Private Hospital between 10 October 2018 and 13 October 2018 in that they engaged in tickling and giggling together; and
    3. AXB and the respondent exchanged hundreds of telephone communications (phone calls and text messages) in early November 2018.
  28. [103]
    The Health Ombudsman further alleges:
    1. the intimate personal and/or sexual relationship ended in about April 2020 when AXB moved out of the respondent’s residence; and
    2. that during the period of the intimate personal and/or sexual relationship, AXB was a vulnerable person.
  29. [104]
    As I have already set out, AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that AXB and the respondent kissed on the night of 8 October 2018.
  30. [105]
    CXT has sworn that AXB told her around May 2020 that:
    1. AXB and the respondent kissed for the first time when AXB was at the respondent’s office late on 8 October 2018;
    2. they continued to be romantically involved whilst AXB was in hospital; and
    3. AXB and the respondent had been in an on and off relationship from when CXT and AXB broke up in 2018 until AXB moved out of the respondent’s house on 16 April 2020.[138]
  31. [106]
    AXB’s best friend, Ms P, has also provided an affidavit in the proceeding.  In it she deposes relevantly:[139]
    1. She and AXB caught up in October 2018.  During that catch up AXB told her:
      1. she was seeing a psychologist whose first name was the same as the respondent’s first name;
      2. that AXB had feelings for the psychologist and had told the psychologist this;
      3. the psychologist felt the same way, but Ms P could not say anything;
      4. they knew it was not the right thing to do so they were just trying to ignore their feelings;
    2. A couple of days later when she and AXB spoke again, AXB told her that they both knew it would be wrong to pursue a relationship so they had not taken it any further;
    3. She went to see AXB on 10 October 2018 after her back surgery.  Whilst she was there, the respondent showed up and ‘… just took over the whole conversation …’, and with the way the respondent was acting, Ms P was sure something was going on between her and AXB, but at that stage it was just a feeling that Ms P had;
    4. In late January 2019, AXB told her she had been in a relationship with the respondent, which included sexual activity, and had been from shortly after AXB broke up with CXT but they had broken up;
    5. The day after that conversation, AXB was taking one of her nephews for a professional consultation with the respondent;
    6. In 2020, AXB told her that AXB was back living at the Gold Coast and back together with the respondent;
    7. In April 2020, AXB told her that AXB and the respondent had broken up and this time it was final.
  32. [107]
    The notification of the complaint to the Health Ombudsman was by AXB’s then treating practitioner in June 2020 after AXB disclosed that the respondent had initiated a romantic and sexual relationship with AXB, which started whilst AXB was seeing the respondent as a patient.[140] 
  33. [108]
    On 9 October 2018, between 7:59:23am and 9:02:36pm, the telephone records for the respondent’s work mobile record that the respondent:
    1. sent AXB at least 48 SMS messages;[141] and
    2. made four telephone calls to AXB, one of which was approximately 15 minutes long at 3:27:04pm.
  34. [109]
    The Tribunal is satisfied, by the facts of:
    1. SMS messages from the respondent to AXB between 3:00am and 4:00am on 9 October 2018;
    2. the telephone records evidencing significant contact originating from the respondent’s work mobile to AXB’s mobile on 9 October 2018;
    3. the observed gift giving in hospital;
    4. the amount of time which the respondent was spending with AXB in hospital;
    5. Ms P’s observations of the respondent and AXB together in the hospital on 10 October 2018;
    6. observations of the doctor on 12 October 2018 at the hospital after AXB’s back surgery of the tickling and giggling; and
    7. the contemporaneous disclosure which AXB made to Ms P in October 2018 of the confession of feelings by each of AXB and the respondent for each other;

that the intimate personal relationship had started prior to AXB’s admission to hospital on 10 October 2018.  Logically, therefore, it had its genesis on 8 October 2018 in the numerous hours which they spent together that night. 

  1. [110]
    I have also found, contrary to the matters in the various written submissions provided by or on behalf of the respondent, that consistent with representations she made in August 2018 and October 2018, that she was AXB’s treating practitioner from August 2018.  I am also satisfied that other matters put in submissions on behalf of the respondent are untrue, and that the respondent must have known that to be so when considered in the context of all the available material, including:
    1. Her denial of knowledge of AXB’s attempt to overdose on 27 September 2018.[142]  The respondent’s email communications with CXT on 28 September 2018 document CXT told the respondent that AXB was contemplating taking her own life and that CXT had involved the police.[143]  I have found that AXB had a session with the respondent on 28 September 2018.  Further, the progress notes from AXB’s stay in the Sunnybank Private Hospital for back surgery document that on 11 October 2018 the respondent told the nurse that AXB had a suicidal attempt a few weeks ago and been admitted to Logan Hospital;[144]
    2. Her denial that she intended to ‘call Ryan’s Rule’ at the Sunnybank Private Hospital if they did not co-operate with her demands because this must have been a comment made by someone who did not understand the health system.[145]  The recording of the respondent’s complaint to the Health Ombudsman that same day and shortly after the file note was made, contains an express reference by the respondent to ‘calling Ryan’s Rule’.  The respondent admits she made the call;[146]
    3. Her denial that she telephoned AXB on 29 November 2018, which I deal with below.
  2. [111]
    These findings cause me to have significant doubt about the respondent’s version of other events, unless they are consistent with contemporaneous records.  Mindful of the Briginshaw standard, the Tribunal is satisfied that AXB and the respondent kissed on this occasion on 8 October 2018.
  3. [112]
    The phone records show significant contact between the respondent and AXB in the days following.  Examples include:
    1. On 14 October 2018 whilst AXB was still in the GCUH, the respondent made voice calls to her totalling 19 and a half minutes at 8:46:22am, 36 minutes at 1:16:13pm and approximately 40 minutes commencing at 8:47:45pm as well as sending 11 SMS messages.[147]  There are no clinical records for TB or RB on this day, suggesting none of these discussions related to their management;
    2. On 2 November 2018, the day AXB broke up with CXT, the respondent’s work mobile records document a phone call to AXB’s mobile of almost two hours commencing at 10:06:55am, another phone call of more than 30 minutes commencing at 1:59:17pm and a third phone call of more than 30 minutes commencing at 10:42:27pm, in addition to other communications;[148]
    3. The respondent’s personal phone records document that she exchanged at least 31 and possibly close to 100 communications, mostly text messages, with AXB on 4 November 2018, from 8:41pm until about 10:41pm.[149]  Neither TB nor RB is recorded as having a session with the respondent on that day or the following day.  This was two days after AXB ended the marital relationship with CXT, but at a time they are still living under the same roof;
    4. For 5 November 2018, the same records document that, when read most conservatively, the respondent sent AXB 92 text messages between 7:47am and 11:41pm;[150] and
    5. For each of 6 and 7 November 2018, the same records contain a substantial number of communications, including on 7 November 2018 telephone calls of 22 minutes and 43 minutes originating from Victoria.[151]  The communications between 3 and 7 November 2018 are occurring notwithstanding the respondent told Child Services on 2 November 2018 that she ‘… was off until Thursday (I’ll be in Melbourne from tomorrow, Saturday 3rd) however will have my phone on me for emergencies.’[152]
  4. [113]
    On 22 November 2018 AXB obtained a second phone from Woolworths Burleigh Heads.  The subscriber data is in evidence in the hearing brief.[153]  On this day contact commences between the respondent’s personal phone and AXB’s new phone with contact occurring daily until 12 January 2019.  It directly contradicts the respondent’s assertion in submissions that the respondent did not make any phone calls from her personal number to AXB until June 2019.[154]  The extent and volume of the contact between them leads the Tribunal to conclude the respondent must have known her representation about this was false.
  5. [114]
    AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that she first had sex with the respondent on 29 November 2018.[155]  The respondent, in a submission, denied being sexually intimate with or present with AXB on this day for various reasons.[156]  One of them was that she made a phone call to an ‘intimate partner’, not AXB, who she was casually seeing at that time at about 9:00pm which lasted for over two hours.[157]   The respondent’s personal phone records document, however, that the extremely long phone call which the respondent made at 9:00pm to her ‘intimate partner’ was a phone call to AXB’s second phone.[158]  The respondent also submitted that she had not made any phone calls from her personal phone to AXB until June 2019, however, the personal phone records reveal she had hundreds of communications with AXB’s second phone prior to June 2019.  This is a blatant falsehood.
  6. [115]
    The fact of these communications between the respondent and AXB on their phones from 22 November 2018 corroborates Ms P’s evidence that AXB told her in late January 2019 that AXB and the respondent had been in a relationship since shortly after AXB and CXT had broken up.
  7. [116]
    AXB provided two photographs of AXB and the respondent kissing, the first of which AXB said was taken on 5 December 2018.[159]
  8. [117]
    The telephone records for the respondent’s personal phone record that approximately 259 phone calls were made to AXB’s second phone between 22 November 2018 and 31 December 2018, a period of 40 days.  AXB’s personal telephone records record that 117 phone calls were made to the respondent’s personal phone in the same period.[160]  The phone location data records have AXB’s second phone and the respondent’s personal phone in the same location on various dates throughout December 2018, including at hours in the evening and early morning.[161]  Directly contrary to the submission put for the respondent,[162] these records demonstrate that they exchanged multiple calls and text messages to AXB’s second phone on significant dates such as Christmas Day, AXB’s birthday in late December and New Year’s Eve.[163]
  9. [118]
    In January or February 2019, AXB commenced seeing a psychologist recommended by the respondent.  In telephone contact initially between the respondent and the new psychologist, the respondent told the new psychologist she was providing services to AXB’s foster children and ‘she identified that the foster parent also required psychological treatment’.[164]
  10. [119]
    AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that when they were together, the respondent would do sessions for TB and RB at home or in the park, but once they broke up, the sessions were back at the respondent’s office.[165]
  11. [120]
    AXB ceased care of TB and RB in approximately mid-February 2019.[166]  Messages provided by the respondent include:
    1. From AXB to the respondent on 18 February 2019 that she has ‘a pretty good cheersquad xx’;[167]
    2. From AXB to the respondent on 19 February 2019 that she can’t wait to see the respondent and tell her all about university, she wants to tell her everything and to hear all about the respondent’s trip;[168]
    3. That they had audio calls on 4 March, 8 March, 13 March, 18 March, 22 March, 23 March and 25 March 2019;[169]
    4. They were together on 30 March 2019;[170] and
    5. They had significant audio contact in April and May 2019.
  12. [121]
    I am not satisfied that these records support the respondent’s submission that they were not in a personal relationship throughout this time, particularly given the daily communications on other platforms.
  13. [122]
    AXB described a relationship with the respondent with ups and downs through until April 2020.[171]  The respondent admits the personal relationship continued until January 2020.  The respondent admits that AXB stayed in her house for ‘weeks’ at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, all be it, she says, in the spare bedroom.[172]  On each party’s account it was tumultuous.  To my mind, the precise point at which the relationship ended is not particularly significant but thew respondent’s admission that AXB was staying at her house indicates a continuation of some level of personal relationship well into 2020, making AXB’s account more probable .
  14. [123]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that the Health Ombudsman has established that:
    1. There was a treating relationship between AXB and the respondent between August and late October 2018;
    2. The personal and intimate relationship commenced between AXB and the respondent on 8 October 2018 and continued, with ups and downs, until sometime in 2020 prior to mid 2020;
    3. The respondent continued to provide psychological services to AXB’s foster children into 2019.

Allegation 2 – failing to make clinical records for treatment of AXB

  1. [124]
    Having found that there was a treating relationship and that it occurred on the dates alleged by the Health Ombudsman, the Tribunal finds this allegation is established as there are no clinical records made by the respondent for her treatment of AXB.

Allegation 3 dishonestly claiming Medicare and/or private health care benefits

  1. [125]
    This allegation is that in the period between June 2018 and September 2018, the respondent dishonestly claimed – or caused to be claimed – Medicare benefits for the provision of psychological services to AXB for services which were not provided to AXB, but rather were provided to TB on each of 23 June 2018, 1, 8 and 22 July 2018, 4 August 2018 and 8 and 18 September 2018.  In oral submissions, the Health Ombudsman did not pursue its alternatively pleaded case.[173]
  2. [126]
    As set out at [43], the respondent has admitted to the Commonwealth Government that she used sessions listed on AXB’s MHCP for a family member on seven occasions[174] being 3, 8 and 22 July 2018, 5, 16 and 29 August 2018 and 22 September 2018.
  3. [127]
    As to whether she did so ‘dishonestly’, the respondent’s evidence is that at the time she made the claims on Medicare, she had not read the guidelines thoroughly and believed that this practice was in line with Medicare rules.[175] 
  4. [128]
    The contemporaneous records record that the respondent was openly reporting to Child Services that she was using AXB’s sessions for one of the children at the time she was doing so.[176]
  5. [129]
    Whilst I have significant concerns about the respondent’s honesty in overall terms, in light of the open way in which she was communicating her actions in the use of these services at the time, I am not satisfied, to the Briginshaw standard, that the respondent has acted dishonestly, as distinct from inappropriately.

Allegation 4 – failing to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in the relationship with AXB after treating his close relations

  1. [130]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges that between about October 2018 until in or about April 2020, the respondent breached professional boundaries by engaging in an intimate personal and/or sexual relationship with AXB, who was a close personal relation of two of the respondent’s patients, TB and RB.
  2. [131]
    The respondent accepts that TB and RB were her clients.  I have found that the respondent and AXB were in an intimate or personal relationship from about 8 October 2018 stretching into 2020.
  3. [132]
    The material indicates that:
    1. AXB and CXT were primary carers for TB and RB and the respondent knew, as at 19 June 2018, that the children had come into care in October 2017 and had been in their current care arrangements since 1 April 2018;[177]
    2. AXB was the paternal aunt of one of the children and the two children shared the same mother;[178]
    3. AXB’s mental health care plan, completed as at 21 June 2018, articulated a diagnosis of adjustment disorder and that AXB’s presenting issues included adjustment period with new family members, problem coping, chronic low back pain and a history of depression;[179]
    4. TB had his initial session with the respondent on 23 June 2018;[180]
    5. RB had his initial session with the respondent on 11 September 2018;[181]
    6. Each of TB and RB had their final session with the respondent on 28 May 2019.[182]
  4. [133]
    I find that AXB was a close personal relation of the respondent’s patients, TB and RB, where AXB is the biological aunt of one of the boys and the carer for both of them.  The submission that the respondent made that AXB should not be deemed to have been closely related to them[183] does not reflect well on her professionalism or judgment.
  5. [134]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges, and the Tribunal accepts, that throughout the treating relationship, TB and RB were vulnerable children.  So much is apparent from:
    1. the respondent’s assessment of them.  For example, on 5 September 2018 the respondent told Child Services that TB will continue to need psychological support for a substantial period of time.[184]  On 24 October 2018 her report to RB’s general practitioner included that RB was non-verbal and suffered from tantrums and nightmares;[185]
    2. information which the respondent received after assessments of the children by Child Development Services in early October 2018 that RB likely had global development delay and TB’s development difficulties were largely affected by past trauma and neglect;[186]
    3. information the respondent received about the childrens’ ongoing behaviours from their carers;[187]
    4. the respondent’s submission in which she acknowledged that involving herself in the lives of AXB and CXT, the carers of her client TB, overstepped professional boundaries and amounted to the respondent engaging in multiple relationships.[188]
  6. [135]
    I also accept that AXB was a vulnerable person and known to be so to the respondent by reason, inter alia, of AXB’s known attempted overdose in September 2018, the pain issues AXB was suffering in the lead up to back surgery in October 2018 and the breakdown of AXB’s personal relationship with CXT in November 2018. 
  7. [136]
    The Tribunal is satisfied that this allegation is established.

Allegation 5 – creating false records for TB and RB

  1. [137]
    The Health Ombudsman’s allegation is that the respondent dishonestly created false clinical records representing she had provided psychological services to each of TB and RB when she had not.  The particulars of the allegation relate to clinical records which falsely represent she provided psychological services to:
    1. TB on each of 11 September and 5 October 2018; and
    2. RB on each of 11 September and 5 October 2018.
  2. [138]
    Daycare records for both children on each of these days have them at daycare for the entire day.[189]  The Health Ombudsman accepted orally that the evidence was stronger for 5 October 2018.[190]
  3. [139]
    11 September 2018 was a Tuesday.  I have dealt factually with the records relating to 11 September 2018 at [49] to [55].  Given the near contemporaneous reference in the report to RB’s doctor of a session with RB on 11 September 2018, the Tribunal is not prepared to find that the respondent has created false records for this day.
  4. [140]
    As to 5 October 2018, at paragraph [62], the Tribunal found that the time which the respondent spent with TB and RB on 5 October 2018 was somewhere in the order of 15 minutes when she went with AXB to collect them from daycare, where they had been since before 8:00am that morning, and that this was insufficient for her to have provided a psychological service to them on this date.  I note also that in the report the respondent prepared for RB’s general practitioner, she did not refer to a session with RB on this date.
  5. [141]
    I am satisfied that the respondent made false records in the clinical note, representing that she had provided psychological services to each of TB and RB on 5 October 2018 when she had not.

Allegation 6 – providing false or misleading information to the OHO

  1. [142]
    The Health Ombudsman alleges that, on or about 11 December 2020, the respondent deliberately caused to be provided to the OHO information which was false or misleading.  The particulars of the allegation are that the respondent instructed her then solicitors to provide a submission to the OHO dated 11 December 2020 in which she asserted that:[191]
    1. on 29 November 2018, she made a phone call at 9:00pm to an intimate partner, not AXB, which lasted over 2 hours and did not finish until after 11:00pm.  The submission was misleading because the phone call at 9:00pm was in fact made to AXB;
    2. she had not made any phone calls to AXB from her personal phone number until June 2019.  This submission is false because the respondent had made numerous phone calls from her personal phone number to AXB before June 2019, the first being in November 2018.   
  2. [143]
    The respondent’s submission enclosed her personal phone records.[192]  However, the phone records provided by the respondent[193] (and those obtained by the OHO investigator) indicate that the phone call the respondent made at 9:00pm to her ‘intimate partner’ was in fact a call to AXB’s second phone (ending 221).[194]  The respondent’s personal phone records[195] reveal that she had hundreds of communications with AXB’s second phone prior to June 2019.
  3. [144]
    The respondent, when faced with these records, was ‘at a loss to explain this’.[196]  In response to requirements to provide information to the OHO pursuant to s 228 of the HO Act, the respondent stated she was unable to provide details of the alleged intimate partner beyond a first name “Sara” and a suburb where “Sara” lived.[197]  The respondent could not remember how she came to know “Sara”, who she communicated with in person and by telephone.  The respondent and “Sara” were involved in a sexual relationship for (approximately) a few months and she had on occasion dropped “Sara” home or stayed the night at “Sara’s” house, but did not remember the specific address.[198]
  4. [145]
    The Tribunal does not accept that the respondent could have been mistaken about being on the phone to AXB for a two hour period on the night of 29 November 2018 or that she had engaged in multiple communications with AXB over many months.
  5. [146]
    The Tribunal is satisfied, in the face of the telephone records of extensive communications between the respondent and AXB, and the respondent’s evasive further responses when faced with the inexplicable telephone records, that the respondent’s explanations in the submission of 11 December 2020 were deliberately false and misleading.

What characterisation is appropriate for the established conduct?

  1. [147]
    In view of the conduct the Tribunal has found the Health Ombudsman has established on allegations 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, the Tribunal is satisfied that a finding of professional misconduct is appropriate.
  2. [148]
    There are a number of very unsatisfactory features of the respondent’s conduct:
    1. entry into a personal and intimate relationship during a treating relationship is both substantially below the conduct reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training and experience and conduct inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.  It is commonly found to amount to professional misconduct;[199]
    2. failing to make any clinical records for a client in a treating relationship is also substantially below the conduct which could reasonably be expected;
    3. entering into a personal and intimate relationship with the close personal relation of existing clients who are known by the practitioner to be vulnerable children demonstrates a basal failure to understand the need to maintain proper distance for objectivity and sound decision making;
    4. creating false records of treatment and making false and misleading submissions to the Health Ombudsman during the investigation concerning activities on the day that it was alleged that sexual activity first occurred mark the serious deceptions which this practitioner was willing to go to avoid detection of her improper and inappropriate professional conduct and to try to protect her own position.
  3. [149]
    The Tribunal finds the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct within the meanings of both (a) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in the National Law.

What sanction should be imposed?

  1. [150]
    The Health Ombudsman seeks:
    1. a reprimand;
    2. an order that the respondent be disqualified from applying for registration for five (5) years from the date of the Tribunal’s order;
    3. an order that, until the respondent has obtained registration as a registered health practitioner under the National Law or a corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia, the respondent be prohibited from (whether as an employee, contractor or volunteer) from providing mental health, psychological or counselling services; and
    4. costs.[200]
  2. [151]
    The purpose of a sanction is to protect the public; it is not to punish the respondent (although a respondent may experience a protective action as a punishment, in the sense of negative consequences towards them).  The Tribunal’s disciplinary jurisdiction is exercised for the paramount purpose of protecting the health and safety of the public[201] and the protection of the reputation of the profession in the public mind. 
  3. [152]
    There are well established considerations for the Tribunal on a disciplinary referral:[202]
    1. preventing respondents who are unfit to practise from practising;
    2. bringing home to the respondent the seriousness of their conduct;
    3. deterring the respondent from future departure from appropriate standards or others who might be minded to act in a similar way; and
    4. imposing restrictions on the respondent’s right to practise to ensure public protection.
  4. [153]
    An assessment of ongoing risk posed by the respondent is essential to any determination of sanction.  In performing that assessment, the degree to which the respondent has acquired insight will be relevant.[203]
  5. [154]
    The Tribunal will consider a range of factors in a given case including the nature and seriousness of the alleged conduct, the extent to which the respondent has shown contrition, insight or remorse for their conduct, the need for general or specific deterrence, evidence of rehabilitation and otherwise good character, including co-operation with the disciplinary process and the regulator and any mitigating factors which are personal to the respondent. 
  6. [155]
    I accept the submissions of the Health Ombudsman that there are a number of features in this referral which place it in the high range of seriousness for boundary violations, including:
    1. That AXB was highly vulnerable, which was known to the respondent who was aware of the following matters:
      1. AXB first attended on the respondent as guardian and carer for two foster children, one of whom, TB, had a history of trauma and had been displaying difficult behaviours at home;
      2. AXB and CXT were fighting;
      3. AXB’s stepdaughter was troubled, including for being expelled from school and self harming;
      4. AXB was under financial stress;
      5. AXB was hospitalised after an overdose taken to self harm in September 2018;
      6. AXB needed, and ultimately had, expensive back surgery in October 2018;
      7. AXB had issues with gender identity and may have met the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria;
    2. There was a high degree of intimacy and trust in the psychologist and patient relationship;
    3. AXB was highly dependent on the respondent in an emotional sense;
    4. The respondent fostered and encouraged intimacy and trust.  An example of this is that the respondent informed Child Services on 2 November 2018 that she had discussed with AXB, prior to it occurring, that AXB wanted to leave the relationship with CXT.[204]  The clinical notes of 28 October 2018 set out a series of planned activities which evidently the respondent discussed with AXB that day.[205]  Of course, by this time, the Tribunal has found that AXB and the respondent were in an intimate personal relationship.  Another example of this is that AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that if AXB did not leave CXT the Department would remove TB and RB from their care;[206]
    5. AXB told the Health Ombudsman’s investigator that the respondent sought to protect her professional career in preference to AXB’s interests by telling AXB not to tell anyone of the relationship as the respondent would lose her job if someone reported it.[207]  That the respondent evidently recognised it was wrong is supported by Ms P’s evidence of what AXB told her in October 2018, as set out above;
    6. The respondent continued to treat AXB’s foster children for some months, even once she and AXB were in a personal relationship and when that relationship was troubled;
    7. the respondent’s conduct had serious adverse consequences for AXB’s mental health;[208]
    8. the respondent’s dishonesty in the course of the investigation was repeated and prolonged.  Even when faced with overwhelming evidence contradicting her position, the respondent could not accept and admit the true position.
  7. [156]
    Insight might be reflected in ways such as demonstrating an understanding of the nature of the conduct, accepting that the conduct was wrong, demonstrating an appreciation of why the conduct was engaged in and empathy for consequences and willingness to take measures to identify risk factors and do what is necessary to avoid future transgressions.[209]
  8. [157]
    There is no indication that the respondent has developed any insight into the failings of her conduct:
    1. Firstly, the respondent maintained her denial that she treated AXB, notwithstanding that the evidence of her doing so was quite clear, and much of it derived from her own records.  In circumstances where AXB has died, the Health Ombudsman was required to lead extensive evidence;
    2. The respondent’s repeated submissions to the Health Ombudsman were dishonest and designed to mislead, and were also very highly critical of AXB’s credibility; and
    3. The respondent has failed to participate meaningfully in this proceeding.  Whilst she was afforded significant time, initially, to respond to the proceeding having asserted she wished to defend it, she continued to obfuscate and delay, then ultimately did not participate in any way, even though directions were made to facilitate her ability to do so.
  9. [158]
    There is some evidence that, in December 2020, the respondent had engaged in some further education and weekly paid supervision relating to ethics and boundary violations.[210] That evidence is relatively scant and does not detail in any meaningful way the steps taken to come to a fuller understanding of ethical obligations and proper professional conduct.  She also employed a practice manager.[211]
  10. [159]
    Further, the manner in which the respondent has participated in these proceedings does not suggest she has developed any insight or proper understanding of the responsibilities of a professional psychologist.
  11. [160]
    The Tribunal is concerned about a risk of such conduct reoccurring and any sanction must be crafted to deter against this risk.
  12. [161]
    These factors also mean that personal deterrence has a significant role to play in any sanction.
  13. [162]
    The assessors sitting with me expressed a concern that the respondent’s conduct commenced almost from the outset of the respondent commencing in private practice, having taken five years to progress from provisional to general registration.  They expressed the opinion that, on the material before the Tribunal, there are real concerns about her ability to practise professionally.  The professionally qualified assessors were concerned that the evidence in the hearing brief suggested the respondent was manipulative and controlling of the events at the Sunnybank Hospital, suggesting a lack of any appreciation of the proper role of a professional psychologist.
  14. [163]
    The scope and breadth of the respondent’s conduct, including the dishonesty in the investigation process, suggests that general deterrence also has a role to play in this sanction.  Practitioners need to understand that this type of conduct jeopardises their ongoing ability to remain in the profession.
  15. [164]
    The Health Ombudsman provided me with a number of comparator cases.[212]  I have considered them carefully.  They support a period of preclusion from practice of somewhere from several years upwards.
  16. [165]
    In Psychology Board of Australia v King (‘King’),[213] the effective preclusion period was seven years, but he had prior history and the evidence established he had an impairment which inhibited has processing abilities and was likely to be permanent.  The conduct here is less egregious than the conduct in King. 
  17. [166]
    In Health Ombudsman v Bricknell (‘Bricknell’),[214] the preclusion period was two years.  The respondent was repeatedly dishonest in the investigation, the treating relationship was extremely brief (three consultations over a four to six week period), there were factors personal to the respondent in mitigation and the case proceeded, ultimately, on agreed facts and admissions as to proper characterisation.  Bricknell is a less serious case than this.
  18. [167]
    In Psychology Board of Australia v Shahinper (‘Shahinper’),[215] the practitioner had a history for breaching professional boundaries with a vulnerable patient and two junior staff members.  He was engaging in the latter conduct whilst he was negotiating the terms of an undertaking he gave concerning that conduct and during the investigation of the latter conduct he persistently and vehemently denied a sexual relationship for almost four years.  His conduct the subject of the referral involved him having a sexual relationship with a patient who he had treated for about five months.  The sexual relationship commenced mere days following the last counselling session and before the treating relationship had been adequately transferred to another psychologist.  The patient was vulnerable.  There were some agreed facts, but sanction was disputed.  The Tribunal considered there was a significant risk of recidivism.  His registration was cancelled and a three year period imposed before he could reapply for registration.  The point of distinction which makes this case worse than Shahinper is the respondent’s absence of any preparedness to admit even straightforward matters.
  19. [168]
    In terms of general principles:
    1. the power imbalance arising from the therapeutic relationship between a psychologist and a patient is always an aggravating factor;[216] and 
    2. dishonest responses to a regulator in the course of an investigation in some respects is an even more serious reflection on character than the original sexual transgression.  The character revealed by a practitioner’s actions is a matter a disciplinary body must be concerned with.[217]
  20. [169]
    In this case, the respondent had conditions on her registration from 5 November 2020 to 26 February 2021 which limited her ability to see certain female patients without a chaperone or the prior permission of the Health Ombudsman.  From 26 February 2021 the conditions required her to keep a patient log and undertake fortnightly professional supervision.  Further conditions requiring the practitioner to undertake and complete education conditions were imposed between 24 July 2023 and 5 December 2024.  The practitioner has not been suspended, although the Tribunal accepts that the conditions have had some impact on the respondent’s ability to practise freely.
  21. [170]
    I am satisfied, given the significance of the respondent’s boundary violation, the confusion of roles with multiple relationships involving both AXB, who was vulnerable, and vulnerable children who were her patients and the practitioner’s repeated and protracted mendacity in the investigation, that a lengthy disqualification period is called for.
  22. [171]
    The Tribunal will disqualify the respondent from applying for registration for four (4) years from the date of the Tribunal’s order.  The Tribunal will also prohibit her from providing mental health, psychological or counselling services until she obtains registration as a registered health practitioner under the National Law or a corresponding law of a State or Territory of Australia.

Non-publication order

  1. [172]
    On 4 October 2024, the Tribunal made an interim non-publication order protecting the identity of the respondent. 
  2. [173]
    The Health Ombudsman seeks a variation of that order on the final determination of the proceeding.  Having heard and determined the matter, and made findings of fact and consequential orders, the Tribunal will vary the order as the Health Ombudsman seeks, subject to one matter.
  3. [174]
    The Tribunal will direct that the second sentence of [101] of these reasons be redacted from the published decision.

Footnotes

[1]  Hearing Book filed 22 November 2024, 853 (‘HB’).

[2]  Ibid 311.

[3]  Evidentiary certificate received at the hearing on 31 March 2025.

[4]  HB (n 1) 852.  Or perhaps that it started in May/June 2019: HB (n 1) 436.

[5]  Section 92 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘QCAT Act’).

[6]  Complying with the requirements of rule 76(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (‘QCAT Rules’) to give written notice of hearing and rule 39(1)(d) of the QCAT Rules that a document can be given by emailing a party at an address for service that includes that email.

[7]  QCAT Act (n 5) s 10(1)(b).

[8]  (1938) 60 CLR 336.

[9]  Including Letter to the Health Ombudsman dated 18 September 2020 contained in HB (n 1), 330-364; Letter to the Health Ombudsman dated 23 October 2020 contained in HB (n 1), 367-371; Letter to the Health Ombudsman dated 26 November 2020 contained in HB (n 1), 389-422; Letter to the Health Ombudsman dated 11 December 2020 contained in HB (n 1), 429-826; Letter to the Health Ombudsman dated 1 February 2021 contained in HB (n 1), 838-846; Submissions on behalf of the Practitioner to the Health Ombudsman dated 16 June 2020 contained in HB (n 1), 852-911; Letter to the Health Ombudsman dated 19 January 2022 contained in HB (n 1), 1614-1619; Email to the Health Ombudsman dated 1 February 2022 contained in HB (n 1), 1622-1624; Email to the Health Ombudsman dated 9 February 2022 contained in HB (n 1), 1628-1629.

[10]  Section 28(3)(a) QCAT Act.

[11]  Section 28(3)(b) QCAT Act.

[12]  Section 28(3)(c) QCAT Act.

[13]  (1933) 50 CLR 228.

[14]  Ibid 256.

[15]  HB (n 1) 19.

[16]  Ibid 334. 

[17]  Ibid 597.

[18]  Ibid 22.

[19]  Ibid.

[20]  Ibid 24. 

[21]  Text message from the respondent to AXB dated 13 June 2018 confirming the initial appointments are set for 23 June 2018 (HB (n 1) 362); entry in CXT’s electronic diary for appointments on 23 June 2018 (HB (n 1) (106).

[22]  The Tribunal understands MHCP refers to Mental Health Care Plan.

[23]  HB (n 1) 858 – 859.

[24]  Ibid 1459.

[25]  Ibid 91-92.

[26]  Ibid 108.

[27]  Ibid 92-93.

[28]  Ibid 93.

[29]  Ibid 1498.

[30]  Applicant’s Written Opening filed 14 November 2024 (updated version filed 28 February 2025), Annexure 1 (‘Applicant’s Written Opening’).

[31]  HB (n 1) 119.  The same email exchange is also at HB (n 1) 61-62.

[32]  Ibid 61.

[33]  Ibid 1105.  The notes were provided by the respondent’s then solicitors as part of TB’s session notes and emails. 

[34]  Ibid 964.

[35]  KET-15 to the First Affidavit of Tinson is a USB which contains the recording.  The First Affidavit of Tinson is at HB (n 1) 280-295. 

[36]  Extract set out in the Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30) 21, [79].

[37]  HB (n 1) 431, [23]-[24].

[38]  Ibid 920.

[39]  Ibid 369-370.

[40]  Ibid 914 (for the number of the medical practice); and KET-2 to the Third Affidavit of Tinson, affirmed 21 May 2024, row 802 (‘Third Affidavit of Tinson’).

[41]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30) 21, [14].

[42]  HB (n 1) 108.

[43]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 1.

[44]  HB (n 1) 1498.

[45]  Ibid 1110.

[46]  Ibid 1111.

[47]  Ibid 1616.

[48]  Ibid 1634-1640.

[49]  Ibid 109.

[50]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 1.

[51]  HB (n 1) 1616.

[52]  Ibid 109.

[53]  Ibid 113.

[54]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 1.

[55]  HB (n 1) 363.

[56]  Ibid 1498.

[57]  Ibid 1137.

[58]  Ibid 1218.

[59]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30) 21, [38].

[60]  HB (n 1) 1466.  For each child there are further sessions noted in the period March-May 2019.

[61]  Ibid 1466.

[62]  Ibid 865-866.

[63]  Ibid 867.

[64]  A full but redacted version of which appears at HB (n 1) 868-871. 

[65]  Ibid 1113.

[66]  Ibid 871.

[67]  Ibid 1230.

[68]  Ibid 38.

[69]  Ibid 94.

[70]  Ibid 1363.

[71]  Ibid 121-122.

[72]  Ibid 1140.

[73]  Ibid 114.

[74]  Ibid 94.

[75]  Ibid 921 contains the medical notes that confirm the date of the surgery as 10 October 2018.

[76]  Ibid 84-85.

[77]  Ibid 124.

[78]  Ibid 1500.

[79]  Ibid 355.

[80]  Ibid 95.

[81]  Ibid 101.

[82]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 1.

[83]  Ibid 6, Annexure 7.

[84]  Ibid.

[85]  HB (n 1) 126-128.

[86]  Ibid 96.

[87]  Ibid 333, 447.

[88]  Ibid 333, [11].

[89]  Ibid 447.

[90]  Ibid 357-359.

[91]  Ibid 1303.

[92]  Ibid 85.

[93]  Ibid 96.

[94]  Ibid 333.

[95]  Ibid 96, 199. 

[96]  Ibid 97.

[97]  Ibid 1328, 1330.

[98]  Ibid 260-261.

[99]  Ibid 250-256.

[100]  Ibid 86.

[101]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 7, 8-10.

[102]  HB (n 1) 86.

[103]  Ibid 97.

[104]  Ibid 130.

[105]  Ibid 98

[106]  Ibid.

[107]  Ibid 1153.

[108]  Ibid 98.

[109]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 7, 10-14.

[110]  HB (n 1) 86.

[111]  Ibid 1154-1155.

[112]  Ibid 132.

[113]  Ibid 132.

[114]  Ibid 133.

[115]  Ibid 110.

[116]  Ibid 117.

[117]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 1.

[118]  HB (n 1) 1500.

[119]  Ibid 922.

[120]  Ibid 333-334.

[121]  Ibid 1162.

[122]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 7, 11.

[123]  HB (n 1) 86.

[124]  Ibid 110.

[125]  Ibid 118.

[126]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 1. 

[127]  HB (n 1) 1165.

[128]  Ibid 334, 1617.

[129]  Ibid 1165

[130]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 7.

[131]  HB (n 1) 160.

[132]  Ibid 161.

[133]  Ibid 334, [19].

[134]  Ibid 857, [1.19].

[135]  Ibid 856, [1.18].

[136]  Ibid 857, [1.19].

[137]  Ibid 857.  More detail is set out at HB (n1 ) 435.

[138]  Ibid 101. 

[139]  Ibid 197-209.  Text messages between Ms P and AXB attached to Ms P’s affidavit are consistent with the matters set out in Ms P’s affidavit.

[140]  Ibid 307.

[141]  There are some other messages which were evidently sent from the respondent’s number to AXB’s number but the coding for the telephone records refers to the involvement of different networks so I have excluded them out of an abundance of caution.

[142]  HB (n 1) 332.

[143]  Ibid 120-122.

[144]  Ibid 1330.

[145]  Ibid 370.

[146]  Ibid 431.

[147]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 7, 9.

[148]  Ibid 14-15.

[149]  Ibid, Annexure 8, ll 4443-4539.  Depending on how the record are to be interpreted, it is possible that two or even three lines relate to a single message.  However, even conservatively reviewed, it appears that the respondent sent 31 text messages to AXB in this approximate two-hour period and spoke with her on the phone for almost 10 minutes.

[150]  Ibid ll 4550-4890.

[151] Ibid ll 4902-5230 for 6 November 2018; and ll 5265-5307 for 7 November 2018.

[152]  HB (n 1) 1236.

[153]  KET-4 to the Third Affidavit of Tinson (n 40) is a USB containing a document entitled “EXHIBIT KET-4- ‘RA3_SP.xlsx.’”

[154]  HB (n 1) 438.

[155]  Ibid 86.

[156]  Ibid 437-438.

[157]  Ibid 438.

[158]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 8, l 8351.

[159]  HB (n 1) 66, 70-71.

[160]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexures 6 and 8.

[161]  Ibid, Annexures 2 and 4.

[162]  HB (n 1) 441.

[163]  Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 4, see eg lines 12026-12027 on Christmas Day; p 234, lines relating to communications on Boxing Day; pp 235-236, 238 for lines relating to communications on AXB’s birthday.

[164]  HB (n 1) 1375.

[165]  Ibid 87.

[166]  Ibid.

[167]  Ibid 614.

[168]  Ibid 620.

[169]  Ibid 636-643. 

[170]  Ibid 649.

[171]  Ibid 87-89.

[172]  Ibid 449.

[173]  Transcript of Proceedings, Health Ombudsman v McDonald (Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, OCR037-23, Judge Dann, Deputy President), 31 March 2025, 1-60 ll 1-30 (‘Transcript of Proceedings, 31 March 2025’).

[174]  The first of them, 3 July 2018, appears to involve a double session.

[175]  HB (n 1) 860.

[176]  Ibid 872 which is a redacted version of an email of 29 August 2018.  By reason of HB (n 1) 1111, where the unredacted version appears, it is apparent that this email went to people at Child Services.  The unredacted first page of a report dated 7 August 2018 is at page 1113, whilst the redacted entire report commences at page 868.  At page 871, the respondent records that with AXB’s MHCP, she is able to double book sessions.

[177]  Ibid 863.

[178]  Ibid 863.

[179]  Ibid 865-866.

[180]  Ibid 1113.

[181]  Ibid 1218.

[182]  Ibid 1285-1286.

[183]  Ibid 456-457.

[184]  Ibid 1120.

[185]  Ibid 1230.

[186]  Ibid 1147.

[187]  Eg, ibid 1160 contains an email from CXT to the respondent on 23 October 2018 setting out behavioural concerns with TB at daycare

[188]  Ibid 859.

[189]  Transcript of Proceedings, 31 March 2025 (n 173) 1-45, ll 12-15.

[190]  Ibid ll 45-46.

[191]  HB (n 1) 437-438.

[192]  Ibid 437.

[193]  The relevant phone records provided with the submission commence at HB (n 1) 466.  See page 469: call on 29 November at 9:01:38pm to a phone number ending ‘221’ for 2:07:22am.  Note the phone records were redacted by the respondent’s solicitors: see HB (n 1) 432, footnote 1.

[194]  See Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 8, 8351.  (In the source data, see: Third Affidavit of Tinson (n 40), exhibit KET-4, USB, document entitled ‘EXHIBIT KET-4 - 'RA3_CCR2.xlsx'; see row 8351 recording a phone call on 29 November 2018 at 9:01:38pm to a phone number ending ‘221’ – AXB’s second phone.)

[195]  Third Affidavit of Tinson (n 40), exhibit KET-4 is a USB containing a document entitled ‘EXHIBIT KET-4 - 'RA3_CCR2.xlsx'.  See the extract of these records in Applicant’s Written Opening (n 30), Annexure 8, which demonstrates the hundreds of communications with AXB’s second phone ending ‘221’ before June 2019.

[196]  HB (n 1) 1619.

[197]  Ibid 1622.

[198]  Ibid 1628.

[199] Health Ombudsman v Gascard [2020] QCAT 264, [6].

[200]  The Health Ombudsman confirmed after the oral hearing on 31 March 2025 that costs were not sought: Email from the Office of the Health Ombudsman to the Tribunal, copied to the respondent, on 10 April 2025.

[201] Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) ss 3(1)(a), 4(1).

[202] Craig v South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545, 553-555.

[203] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391 [71], citing Medical Board of Australia v Bromeley [2018] QCAT 163 [142]. 

[204]  HB (n 1) 1236.

[205]  Ibid 1165.

[206]  Ibid 86.

[207]  Ibid 87.

[208]  Ibid 88-89.

[209] Psychology Board of Australia v Garcia [2015] VCAT 128, [34]. 

[210]  HB (n 1) 343-345, 458.

[211]  Ibid 338.

[212] Psychology Board of Australia v Spring [2015] QCAT 314; Psychology Board of Australia v King [2016] QCAT 140; Psychology Board of Australia v Roychowdhury [2019] QCAT 50; Psychology Board of Australia v Knobel (No 2) [2021] VCAT 1333; Psychology Board of Australia v Shahinper [2016] QCAT 259 (‘Shahinper’); Health Ombudsman v Bricknell [2019] QCAT 340; Psychology Board of Australia v Popovski [2019] VCAT 155.

[213]  [2016] QCAT 140.

[214]  [2019] QCAT 340.

[215]  [2016] QCAT 259.

[216] Shahinper (n 212) [69].

[217]Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516, [21].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Health Ombudsman v McDonald

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Health Ombudsman v McDonald

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 170

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Judge Dann, Deputy President

  • Date:

    25 Jul 2025

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
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 79 SASR 545
Cite 2 - (2001) 79 SASR 545
Crime and Corruption Commission v Carless [2019] QCAT 50
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 50
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 50
Health Ombudsman v Bricknell [2019] QCAT 340
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 340
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 340
Cite 3 - [2019] QCAT 340
Health Ombudsman v Gascard [2020] QCAT 264
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 264
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 264
Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 163
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 163
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Lockie [2022] QCAT 391
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 391
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 391
Psychology Board of Australia v King [2016] QCAT 140
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 140
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 140
Cite 3 - [2016] QCAT 140
Psychology Board of Australia v Knobel (No 2) [2021] VCAT 1333
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] VCAT 1333
Cite 2 - [2021] VCAT 1333
Psychology Board of Australia v Popovski [2019] VCAT 155
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] VCAT 155
Cite 2 - [2019] VCAT 155
Psychology Board of Australia v Shahinper [2016] QCAT 259
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 259
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 259
Cite 3 - [2016] QCAT 259
Psychology Board of Australia v Spring [2015] QCAT 314
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 314
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 314
Psychology Board of Australia v Wakelin [2014] QCAT 516
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QCAT 516
Cite 2 - [2014] QCAT 516
Psychology Board v Garcia [2015] VCAT 128
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] VCAT 128
Cite 2 - [2015] VCAT 128
R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal and Anor; Ex Parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1933) 50 CLR 228
Cite 2 - (1933) 50 CLR 228

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.