Health Care Complaints Commission v Gaberman

Disclosure of the names of patients

1. In these proceedings, orders were made, with the consent of the parties, prohibiting the disclosure and/or publication of the names of the patients referred to in the Complaint. In these reasons, we will refer to those patients as Patient A, Patient B and Patient C.
2. To minimise the risk of disclosing the identity of any patient, we will not refer to the Facility, the Hospital or the Local Health District by name.

The Complaint

1. By Complaints 1, 2 and 3, the Commission alleges that Mr Gaberman is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by s 139B(1)(a) of the National Law ("conduct that demonstrates the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised, by the practitioner in the practice of the practitioner's profession is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience") and s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law ("any other improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of the practitioner's profession").
2. By Complaint 4, the Commission alleges that Mr Gaberman is guilty of professional misconduct.

Issues to be determined

1. The key issues we must decide are: 1. Whether the conduct particularised in Complaint 1 and denied by Mr Gaberman is proven (Particulars 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 7 and 9); 2. Whether any admitted or proven conduct in Complaint 1 constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by s 139B(1)(a) and/or s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law; 3. Whether the conduct particularised in Complaint 2, constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by s 139B(1)(a) and/or s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law; 4. Whether the conduct particularised by Complaint 3 is proven; 5. If so: 1. whether by that conduct, Mr Gaberman breached cl 4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Nurses, and 2. whether that conduct constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by s 139B(1)(a) and/or s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law. 1. If proven or admitted, whether any of the instances of unsatisfactory professional conduct listed in Particular 2 of Complaint 4, amounts to professional misconduct within the meaning of s 139E of the National Law, that is, whether it is of sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of Mr Gaberman's registration. 2. In the alternative, whether two or more instances of unsatisfactory professional conduct amount to professional misconduct within the meaning of s 139E of the National Law. 3. Whether protective orders should be made, and, if so, what form of protective orders should be made. 4. Whether Mr Gaberman should be required to pay all or some of the Commission's costs.

The Facility: staffing and workplace culture

1. To put the submissions made by the parties in context, it is useful to make some observations about staffing arrangements and the workplace culture of the Facility.
2. Throughout the period of the Complaint, the eight beds at the Facility were in high demand. The beds were usually occupied.
3. Nursing staff were rostered to work morning (07:00 to 15:30), evening (14:30 to 22:00) or night (22:00 to 07:00) shifts. A nurse unit manager (a NUM), a nurse educator, and a social worker were rostered to work throughout the day, usually from 08:00 to 17:00. A nurse-in-charge, three or four registered nurses and one or more enrolled nurses were usually rostered on the morning shift. A nurse-in-charge, two registered nurses, or an enrolled nurse and registered nurse were rostered to work the afternoon shift. The weight of evidence is that the Facility was chronically understaffed and rostered positions were often not able to be filled.
4. The practice of the Facility was to allocate each member of the nursing staff, except the NUM, responsibility for particular patients.
5. Throughout the period Mr Gaberman was employed at the Facility (November 2014 to April 2020), there was a difference of opinion between members of nursing staff about the proper model of patient care. Adherents of the model said to have been championed by the Facility's inaugural NUM, Ms Louise Megson (2008 to 2016), favoured what was described by its adherents as a "patient centric", "compassionate" model of care which encouraged "warm therapeutic relationships" between staff and patients.
6. Mr Gaberman was an adherent of that approach and held in high regard by Ms Megson. In an email sent on 27 February 2017 to NUM Mr Peter Lacey, Ms Megson provided a reference for Mr Gaberman - "possibly/probably the most skilled and exceptional mental health nurse that I have ever worked with". Ms Megson wrote that Mr Gaberman has "excellent therapeutic skills and uses them to engage with young people whilst maintaining professional boundaries".
7. Other members of staff described the model of care promoted by Ms Megson as a "rescuing mindset" which failed to acknowledge the power differential between patient and nurses. Mr Timothy Dilli, who took over as NUM in April 2021, said that when he commenced at the Facility in 2015 there was a culture of "over-familiarity" between nursing staff and patients. He felt some staff members were ostracised and undermined in their practice while others were praised and promoted. In his opinion, this culture and management style probably contributed to Mr Gaberman's "intensive approach" to patient care. Mr Dilli considered that clinical governance at the Facility was lacking and that greater structure should have been established.
8. From about 2016, the differences of opinion between staff about the proper model of care became more pronounced, particularly in relation to the treatment of patients with eating disorders. Some, including Mr Gaberman, considered the approach adopted by some treating practitioners to be harsh and overly reliant on the use of restrictive practices to modify patient behaviour.
9. In 2021, an external review of the Facility was conducted and several recommendations for change made. To date, those changes have apparently not been formally implemented.

Complaint 1 - Patient A

1. Complaint 1 relates to Mr Gaberman's behaviour towards Patient A and spans the period January 2019 to November 2019. Since turning 13 years of age, Patient A had been admitted to the Facility on multiple occasions, presenting with suicidal ideation, panic disorder, deliberate self-harm in the context of social anxiety, an eating disorder (anorexia nervosa), obsessive-compulsive disorder, borderline personality disorder, and chronic mood dysregulation. In January 2019, Patient A was 16.5 years of age.
2. The substance of Complaint 1 is the allegation that five discrete incidents, taken in combination, demonstrate that Mr Gaberman failed to "maintain professional boundaries" with Patient A.

Sub-particular 2a: Did Mr Gaberman inappropriately interrupt RN Butler's engagement with Patient A?

1. By Particular 2 of Complaint 1, the Commission complains: "2. On a date unknown in January 2019, the practitioner: a. inappropriately interrupted RN Emma Butler's engagement with Patient A in circumstances where there was no therapeutic indication that his assistance was required; b. breached proper professional boundaries by agreeing to provide Patient A his shoulder to cry on."
2. Registered Nurse (RN), Ms Emma Butler, commenced employment with the Facility in early 2018, working one day per week. In a statement dated 21 December 2021, Ms Butler stated that on several occasions she observed Mr Gaberman being "overly involved with [Patient A]". In these proceedings, Ms Butler said she was not concerned that Mr Gaberman was sexually inappropriate with Patient A or any other patient, but she was concerned about his tendency to "overly engage" with Patient A and other patients. In Ms Butler's opinion, while Mr Gaberman was well-intentioned and genuinely believed his level of involvement was beneficial, his level of engagement was not beneficial to Patient A.
3. In an email to Clinical Nurse Educator, Mr Brent Hall, dated 19 January 2019, Ms Butler raised concerns about the amount of time that Mr Gaberman spent engaging one-on-one with some patients including Patient A. Referring to an incident which had "occurred recently", Ms Butler wrote: "I was engaging with a female patient [Patient A] in a conversation when Lane commenced his shift, approached and sat down next to myself and [Patient A]. He addressed his conversation solely toward the patient and did not acknowledge my presence or include me in the conversation (with body language, a greeting or other interaction). Sometime into the conversation he initiated with [Patient A] he briefly said 'hello' to me and immediately continued his conversation with [Patient A]."
4. In a letter to Mr Gaberman, dated 14 March 2019, a senior manager employed by the Area Health Service, Ms Fiona Couch, asked Mr Gaberman to respond to several "reported concerns" including the incident described by Ms Butler and set out above. Ms Couch described that incident as "another staff member was engaging with [Patient A], you interrupted this engagement and commenced conversation with [Patient A] effectively 'cutting out' the other staff member".
5. In a letter in response dated 20 March 2019, Mr Gaberman stated that the incident described by Ms Couch was "clouded by a subjective interpretation of what actually transpired". He said that earlier that day Patient A had received a letter from her mother which caused her distress and anxiety. As a result, Patient A's case coordinator, social worker, Ms Rebecca Gordon, asked him "to personally support [Patient A] that evening". Mr Gaberman wrote: "[Patient A] is another client I have worked with over a period of several years and multiple admissions to [the Facility]. I believe we have developed a strong and positive therapeutic rapport during that time. [Patient A] has discussed many sensitive issues with me during her admissions with great openness and candour. One of the central issues for [Patient A] involves her relationship with her mother. On the day in question, [Patient A] was expressing feelings of having been blamed and shamed in a lengthy letter penned by her mother which had been recently delivered to her. She was highly distressed and anxious about its contents. She felt the letter was highly accusatory in tone and laden with statements that could easily be interpreted as intending to provoke feelings of guilt and shame, as can be corroborated by her Care Coordinator (CC) at the time (RG). Following a session with RG, I had been asked directly by the CC to personally support [Patient A] that evening. The other nurse involved, who [Patient A] had not known for very long and she had not (in my observation) developed significant rapport with, was speaking with [Patient A] and the CC when I approached to see how I might assist. Earlier in the day, I had promised [Patient A] that we could go out for a walk later that day, and I asked if she still wished to do so. I also stated that if she wished to go with the other nurse, that was absolutely fine and the decision was certainly hers. [Patient A] requested that I go for the walk with her, and we did. There was no intention on my part to disrupt an interaction between her and the other nurse. [Patient A] simply made her own choice without any coercion, and I was able to honour the commitment I'd made to her earlier in the day about going out for a walk together, as well as supporting [Patient A] per the request of the CC (RG). I must assume that this is the event where I allegedly 'interrupted the conversation' and 'cut out the other staff member.' If I did, it was certainly unintentional and worthy of an apology from me. During our walk, [Patient A] and I discussed the letter and explored her feelings about it. She was enraged and feeling as though her mother was attempting to use guilt as a tool of manipulation (an earlier conversation with her CC (RG) seemed to validate this interpretation). I asked her if she wished to communicate these feelings directly to her mother - if/when she was ready to do so. (Self-advocacy had been an issue we had been working on for some time, as [Patient A] often directed her resentments inward - or in outwardly destructive ways). [Patient A] stated she thought she might like to confront her mother over the phone that evening to convey her feelings about the letter. I told her I thought that if she felt she was ready to do that, I would absolutely support her in doing so. I also provided some basic instruction in nonviolent communication to support her if she chose to make the call that evening, so that she had the best possibility of advocating for herself respectfully to her mother. Upon return to the unit, [Patient A] was more ambivalent about making the call. I did not pressure her in any way, and I recall stating, 'You do not have to do it. It's totally your choice. I will support you in whatever decision you make.' [Patient A] deliberated a bit more internally, then later approached me unprompted and said 'OK, I'm going to do it. I don't want to sit on this all night...' I believe I may have said, 'Good for you!' I also recall [Patient A] saying, 'I might need a shoulder to cry on afterwards though...' to which I replied, 'We're here to support you. Of course!' [Patient A] then made her phone call. It appeared to go well. She maintained her composure, advocated for herself extremely well, and showed great maturity during the call. After she hung up, we acknowledged her courage and composure with positive feedback."
6. In these proceedings, Ms Gordon confirmed that she asked Mr Gaberman to support Patient A. Ms Gordon described Patient A as "one of the more high-needs" patients at the Facility. She shared Mr Gaberman's opinion that Patient A had a particularly complex relationship with her mother and that Mr Gaberman had developed a good rapport with Patient A.
7. Mr Gaberman disputes that he "inappropriately interrupted" Ms Butler's engagement with Patient A. He claims that he, not Ms Butler, was allocated to care for Patient A on the day of the incident. In support, he points to the clinical note he made on 19 January 2019, the only clinical note made by a member of the nursing staff about Patient A on that day. Mr Gaberman and Ms Butler agree that the practice in the Facility was for the nurse allocated to care for a patient on a particular day to be responsible for recording any clinical notes about that patient made on that day.

Consideration

1. The incident about which Ms Butler complained in her email to Mr Hall of 19 January 2019 probably occurred on 11 January 2019. That is consistent with the clinical note made by Mr Gaberman on 11 January 2019 referring to Patient A having a telephone conversation with her mother that day which was "difficult for her". Further, it is not inconsistent with Ms Butler's email to Mr Hall complaining about Mr Gaberman's conduct which referred to an incident which had "occurred recently".
2. We find that Mr Gaberman interrupted Ms Butler's conversation with Patient A on 11 January 2019. That finding is consistent with the account Ms Butler gave to Mr Hall eight days after the incident. In addition, while in these proceedings Mr Gaberman formally denied Ms Butler's claim, in his letter to Ms Couch sent six weeks after the incident, Mr Gaberman, in effect, acknowledged that he may have unintentionally interrupted Ms Butler's conversation with Patient A.
3. The difference between the accounts given by Ms Butler and Mr Gaberman largely turns on their respective opinions about whether the interruption was warranted and appropriate. Ms Butler saw it as a further example of Mr Gaberman's intense style of patient engagement which, in her opinion, was not beneficial to patients and which "fractur[ed] a unified team approach to patient care". On the other hand, Mr Gaberman considered the interruption to be necessary given Ms Gordon's request to "personally support" Patient A. In his opinion, it was a matter of some urgency that he speak with Patient A because her emotional stability was at risk as a result of receiving the letter from her mother. Mr Gaberman reasoned that as he had cared for Patient A throughout multiple admissions to the Facility, he had developed a better rapport with Patient A than Ms Butler who had only known her for a short period.
4. We accept that Mr Gaberman held, and continues to hold, the honest belief that his interruption of Ms Butler's conversation with Patient A was warranted. However, in circumstances where Ms Butler and Patient A were engaging in a one-to-one conversation, where at that time there was nothing to indicate that Patient A was distressed or at immediate risk of harm, where other options were available to Mr Gaberman to give effect to Ms Gordon's request, such as taking Ms Butler aside and informing her of that request, we find that the interruption was inappropriate.
5. There is no reliable evidence about who was allocated to care for Patient A on 11 January 2019. But, even if, as he claimed, Mr Gaberman was the allocated nurse, given the circumstances described above, his conduct in interrupting a colleague was inappropriate. Sub-particular (a) is established.

Sub-particular 2(b): "Shoulder to cry on" allegation

1. In her email to Mr Hall sent on 19 January 2019, Ms Butler gave this account of Mr Gaberman's interaction with Patient A after he interrupted her conversation with Patient A: "The content of Lane's conversation appeared to be very directive and delivered with body language, words and tone that were insistent. Specifically, Lane repetitively communicated that he felt [Patient A] should phone their mother to inform this parent that their recent behaviour was inappropriate. He fleetingly added that [Patient A] should only do what they wanted and not necessarily listen to him. Several times [Patient A] shared reluctance to phone her mother. Yet Lane continued to communicate that he felt it was a good idea for her to make the phone call. Given the dynamic of the interaction I felt the conversation would lead to/Lane would implicitly or directly offer to emotionally support [Patient A] if she phoned her mother. Shortly after I formed this impression [Patient A] looked at Lane and said she would make the phone call if she had a 'shoulder to cry on afterwards'. [Patient A] appeared to be seeking for Lane to give her a 'shoulder to cry on'. Lane then said he would provide this for her."
2. In a letter to Ms Couch dated 20 March 2019, Mr Gaberman disputed Ms Butler's claim that he pressured Patent A to contact her mother. Rather, he claimed that he explored with Patient A her feelings about the letter she had received from her mother, whether she wished to communicate those feelings to her mother and whether she felt ready to so do.
3. Mr Gaberman denies offering Patient A "a shoulder to cry on". Rather, he claims that in response to the statement made by Patient A "after I call my mother, I might need a shoulder to cry on", he responded by saying "we are all here to support you, whatever you decide to do".
4. In cross-examination, Ms Butler said that she understood that the expression "shoulder to cry on" can carry a literal or figurative meaning and the meaning conveyed is dependent on context.

Consideration

1. It is agreed that during the conversation Patient A said words to the effect, "I might need a shoulder to cry on". While there is some difference between the accounts given by Ms Butler and Mr Gaberman about the words Mr Gaberman said in reply, they broadly agree that he, in effect, said that he would support Patient A if she rang her mother. The issue raised by sub-particular 2(b) is whether, in doing so, Mr Gaberman "breached proper professional boundaries". Two contextual factors are relevant to that evaluation: whether Mr Gaberman pressured Patient A to phone her mother, and, whether in agreeing to Patient A's request, Mr Gaberman had agreed to provide Patient A with physical as well as emotional support.
2. Mr Gaberman considered that it was in Patient A's interests to contact her mother and made that view clear to Patient A. Given the inherent power imbalance in a practitioner and patient relationship, especially where, as in this case, there is a significant disparity in the ages of the practitioner and patient, the line between recommending and pressuring a patient to do something can be difficult to identify. While Patient A would have been left with no doubt that in Mr Gaberman's opinion she should phone her mother, the available evidence does not support a finding that Mr Gaberman pressured Patient A to do so.
3. We accept that Ms Butler holds the honest belief that Mr Gaberman offered to provide physical comfort to Patient A if she were to ring her mother. In addition, we accept that Ms Butler understood Patient A used the expression 'shoulder to cry on' in a literal sense and, in acceding to her request, Mr Gaberman understood that to be the case. However, objectively assessed, we are not satisfied that Mr Gaberman agreed to provide physical support to Patient A. The contention that Mr Gaberman "breached proper professional boundaries" is based on the assumption that he did. Sub-particular (b) must fail.

Conduct significantly below the standard

1. The task of evaluating whether the conduct the subject of sub-particular 2(a) constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 139B(1)(a) of the National Law, requires that we: 1. identify the standard "reasonably expected" of a nurse of an equivalent level of training or experience to Mr Gaberman (the relevant standard); and 2. evaluate whether Mr Gaberman's interruption of Ms Butler's conversation with Patient A demonstrates that the judgment possessed, or care exercised by Mr Gaberman in the practice of nursing fell "significantly below" the relevant standard.
2. By January 2019, Mr Gaberman had been practising as a nurse for about four years, almost exclusively in the area of adolescent mental health. In 2014, Mr Gaberman was awarded a Bachelor's degree in Nursing and, in 2017, a Graduate Certificate in Nursing (Mental Health and Psychiatric Nursing). The relevant standard is that reasonably expected of a nurse with that level of training and experience.
3. At the request of the Commission, Registered Nurse, Ms Yasmin Burgess, prepared several reports for these proceedings and gave oral evidence. Ms Burgess stated that Mr Gaberman's actions in interrupting the conversation between Ms Butler and Patient A was inappropriate as "there was no therapeutic indication for the interruption". In Ms Burgess' opinion, Mr Gaberman's actions were "insensitive, ill-considered and undermining of the therapeutic rapport between RN Butler and [Patient A]". Referring to the conduct alleged in both sub-particulars 2(a) and 2(b), Ms Burgess stated that Mr Gaberman's "conduct fell below the standard the standard expected for a Registered Nurse working with adolescent females".

Consideration

1. Mr Gaberman's conduct in interrupting a colleague's conversation with Patient A demonstrated poor judgment, lack of respect for a colleague and impulsivity. However, as a single incident, in circumstances where there is no evidence to suggest, and nor is it claimed, that when the interruption occurred, Ms Butler was providing counselling or some other form of therapy to Patient A, Mr Gaberman's conduct demonstrates that the judgment he possessed, and care exercised fell below, but not significantly below, the relevant standard. We note that in reaching a differing opinion Ms Burgess assumed that Mr Gaberman had offered Patient A a literal shoulder to cry on.

Improper or unethical conduct

1. The Commission contends that the conduct in Particular 1 of Complaint 1 constitutes "improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or nursing": s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Kesserwani [2020] NSWCATOD 65 at [21]-[26], a differently constituted tribunal considered the proper meaning of the expression improper or unethical conduct within the meaning of s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law. We adopt that interpretation.
2. The subject conduct was inappropriate and not best practice. It demonstrated poor judgment. However, in our view it could not be said to be sufficiently egregious to be characterised as either "improper" or "unethical".

Particular 3

1. Particular 3 of Complaint 1 states: "3. On or about 27 September 2019, the practitioner provided Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ('CBT') to Patient A in circumstances where: a. he was not formally trained to do so, and b. providing CBT was outside the scope of his role as an RN at [the Facility]."
2. The issue in dispute is whether, as alleged by the Commission and denied by Mr Gaberman, he provided Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to Patient A. Mr Gaberman has knowledge of, but has not undertaken formal training in, CBT.
3. Before answering this question, it is necessary to consider what is meant by the term CBT, as that term is used in Particular 3.

Meaning of CBT

1. The Complaint does not contain a definition of CBT. The only evidence about the meaning of that term was given by Ms Gordon and Mr Gaberman.
2. Ms Gordon has undertaken formal training in and is qualified to use CBT. In answer to questions from the Tribunal, Ms Gordon explained that CBT was "a formalised and structured form of treatment" where a therapist assists a person to modify their behaviours/thinking patterns by setting goals, identifying values, and measuring progress against those goals. In CBT, the therapist conducts a preliminary assessment and assists the patient to identify values and to set formal goals, against which the patient's progress is measured. CBT is based on "Beck's triangle", the notion that "thought - emotion - behaviour" are interrelated.
3. Ms Gordon explained that, as with all therapies, there are "manualised versions" of CBT where the therapist follows a "strict protocol". However, in practice, the manualised versions of CBT version are rarely used. According to Ms Gordon, many people come to therapy only once or twice and therefore therapists commonly use a "combination of approaches" to give the person "the skills that they need to relieve their suffering". In her view, even in a brief session a therapist can provide elements of CBT and assist a person to develop an understanding of their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours and to reflect on them to create change.
4. Ms Gordon explained that the practice of reflecting on thoughts, feelings and behaviours is a component of several other types of therapies such as mindfulness, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and motivational interviewing. According to Ms Gordon, ACT and mindfulness were techniques commonly used with patients at the Facility. Nursing staff were trained in and were expected to be able to engage with patients in mindfulness, meditation, and some elements of ACT. These and other 'therapies', such as yoga, were used by staff to assist patients to increase their skills to tolerate distress and to regulate their emotions. Ms Gordon explained that CBT is "a first-generation therapy" and the "umbrella term", under which ACT, mindfulness and several other types of therapy sit.
5. Ms Gordon explained that a care plan was developed for each patient which gave direction about the type of therapies which could be used with that patient.
6. Mr Gaberman agreed with Ms Gordon's explanation of CBT. In his view, the critical difference between CBT and other types of therapy falling under the CBT umbrella is the highly formalised nature of CBT, specifically the identification of clear goals against which the patient's progress is measured.
7. In Ms Gordon's view, a series of discussions with a person about their values did not constitute CBT and nor did informing the person about the model used in CBT, "Beck's triangle".

Evidence given by Ms Soliman and Mr Bruce-Allen

1. In support of the allegation that Mr Gaberman provided CBT to Patient A, the Commission relied on the evidence given by Registered Nurses, Ms Traiza Soliman and Mr Michael Bruce-Allen, together with several entries in Patient A's clinical records made by Mr Gaberman.
2. In a statement dated 19 August 2021, Ms Soliman said that she recalled a conversation with Mr Gaberman "where he told me he was doing CBTE (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy-Enhanced) with [Patient A]". She claimed that during that conversation, Mr Gaberman "questioned why he wasn't allowed to do CBTE with the patients" to which she replied that if he wanted to use CBTE he "should study and practise medicine or psychology". In an interview conducted on 13 December 2019, Ms Soliman said that Mr Gaberman "performed therapies" on patients and had been saying "he's been doing CBTE with [Patient A]". Ms Soliman described CBTE as "a form of CBT for people with anorexia". She explained that the Facility did not use CBTE; "it's not one of our standards". She said that the nursing staff "take guidance from the OTs, the psychologists". But Mr Gaberman "always seems to go out of his way to do things that are not what the multidisciplinary team have asked us to do".
3. Ms Soliman acknowledged she had never observed Mr Gaberman using CBTE.
4. In oral evidence, Mr Bruce-Allen said that Mr Gaberman told him that he had engaged in CBT with Patient A. He agreed with the proposition, put by Mr Gaberman, that Mr Gaberman had clarified that he had "discussed values" with patients. Mr Bruce-Allen said that in his opinion, discussing values with patients did not fall outside Mr Gaberman's "scope of practice".

Evidence given by Mr Gaberman

1. Mr Gaberman denies engaging in CBT with Patient A or any other patient. He said that he used elements of CBT in engaging with patients with therapies such as mindfulness and ACT.

Patient A's clinical records

1. Patient A's clinical notes contain the following entries: "19 September 2019: 09:26: [Entry made by Dr Babak]: Nursing update Patient A ambivalent about starting CBT [the 19 September Clinical Note]. 00:43: [Entry by Mr Gaberman]: Discussed alternative therapeutic strategies; author introduced some CBT concepts to Patient A (e.g. Cognition / Emotion / Behaviour triangle) - which she stated a willingness to explore further. Patient A then engaged in a 1:1 for ~1 hour with author. 27 September 2019: 19:46: [Entry made by Mr Gaberman]: Engaged in CBT/ACT exercise with author in courtyard in evening (identifying / inventory of values) appeared enthusiastic about engaging in said work [the 27 September Clinical Note]. 29 September 2019: 17:09: [Entry made by Mr Gaberman]: Engaged with author in courtyard continuing with ACT/CBT exercise of values identification. Provided Patient A with homework regarding mindfulness of thoughts/feelings/actions over next few days - especially when experiencing emotional dysregulation. Patient A has been regularly and enthusiastically engaging in same over previous week."

Consideration

1. The absence of any definition of CBT in the Complaint makes it difficult to determine what is meant by the allegation that Mr Gaberman "provided CBT to [Patient A]". In circumstances where the evidence reveals that nursing staff were encouraged to use a range of therapies which fall under the CBT umbrella and to use elements of CBT, we have not taken this allegation to mean that Mr Gaberman engaged with Patient A in those therapies. Rather, we have taken this allegation to mean that Mr Gaberman provided CBT in the sense used by Ms Gordon: a formalised type of therapy characterised by the setting of and measuring of clear goals.
2. The clinical notes on which the Commission relies reveal that on 19 September 2019, Patient A expressed ambivalence to her treating psychiatrist about starting CBT. It can be inferred from that note that the treating psychiatrist had encouraged or at least raised with Patient A the option of engaging in CBT.
3. The clinical note made by Mr Gaberman nine days later records that Mr Gaberman discussed "alternative therapeutic strategies" and "some CBT concepts" with Patient A. We agree with Ms Gordon's opinion that discussing values with a patient or providing a patient information about CBT could not be said to be providing a patient with CBT. The reference in that note to Mr Gaberman "engaged in CBT/ACT exercise" with Patient A does not establish that Mr Gaberman engaged in CBT with Patient A in the sense used by Particular 3.
4. There is no direct evidence that Mr Gaberman engaged in CBT with Patient A. He steadfastly denies doing so. It is unclear precisely what Ms Soliman meant by the claim that Mr Gaberman "used CBTE" with Patient A. In oral evidence, Mr Bruce-Allen appeared to qualify his claim that Mr Gaberman told him he had engaged in CBT with Patient A. The clinical notes relied upon Commission are inconclusive. For these reasons, we are not satisfied that Mr Gaberman provided CBT in the sense we have used that term. Particular 3 is not proven.

Particulars 5 and 6

1. Particular 5 of Complaint 1 states: "5. On 5 November 2019, on a date and time that he was not rostered to work at [the Facility], the practitioner attended [the Facility] and: a. personally farewelled Patient A without seeking prior approval from the NUM to attend the unit for this purpose; b. inappropriately went into a quiet room at [the Facility] alone with Patient A and conducted a meditation with her; c. brought a lighter onto [the Facility] premises; d. lit an incense stick with Patient A in the outside courtyard; e. breached proper professional boundaries by embracing in a hug with Patient A of approximately one minute duration. 6. The practitioner failed to record his interactions with Patient A occurring on 5 November 2019 in her patient record."
2. Mr Gaberman admits Particular 6.
3. With respect to Particular 5, Mr Gaberman denies paragraph (a) and admits the balance of that particular. Mr Gaberman agrees that on 5 November 2019 he was not rostered to work and visited the Facility to farewell Patient A. However, he disputes the premise on which paragraph (a) is based, that members of the nursing staff required prior approval from the NUM to attend the Facility to farewell a patient on a day they were not rostered to work.
4. The weight of evidence is that, while not a common occurrence, it was not unknown for members of the nursing staff to visit the Facility on a day they were not rostered to work to see or to farewell a patient. That finding is consistent with: 1. The report dated 29 January 2020 commissioned by the LHD to investigate Mr Gaberman's visit to the Facility on 5 November 2019. That report noted that the practice of off-duty staff attending the Facility had become a form of "unaccountable, unchallenged, accepted culture". 2. The reaction of nurse-in-charge, Ms Soliman, to Mr Gaberman's attendance at the Facility on 5 November 2019. On becoming aware that Mr Gaberman had come to farewell Patient A, Ms Soliman did not express disapproval or attempt to stop the visit. In an email to NUM, Mr Peter Lacey, sent shortly after the visit, while critical of the manner Mr Gaberman conducted the farewell, Ms Soliman made no mention of Mr Gaberman's failure to seek permission to attend the Facility to farewell Patient A on a day he was not rostered to work. The Commission contends that Ms Soliman's inaction can be explained by her apparent lack of management experience and training together with the fact that she was junior to Mr Gaberman. While those factors might explain why Ms Soliman failed to intervene or confront Mr Gaberman, it does not explain why she failed to raise with Mr Lacey, less still with Mr Gaberman, his failure to obtain permission to attend the Facility on a day he was not rostered to work. 3. The evidence given by Mr Bruce-Allen and several other members of nursing staff. Mr Bruce-Allen's evidence was to the effect that the practice of off-duty staff visiting the Facility to see a patient was not as common as claimed by Mr Gaberman, but nonetheless occurred.
5. The premise on which paragraph (a) rests is not established.

Conduct significantly below the standard

1. While there are some differences between the accounts of the farewell given by Mr Gaberman and the on-duty nursing staff, Mr Gaberman admits the conduct described in paragraphs (b) to (e) of Particular 5. In addition, Mr Gaberman concedes that the admitted conduct in Particular 5 and demonstrates that the judgment he possessed, and care he exercised, fell significantly below the relevant standard. Mr Gaberman makes the same concession in relation to Particular 6.
2. In our view, these concessions were properly made. Of itself, Mr Gaberman's decision to farewell a long-term patient on a day he was not rostered to work does not demonstrate a lack of judgment or care. However, the manner in which the farewell was conducted: a silent meditation in a room where Mr Gaberman was alone with Patient A, followed by a one-minute hug in circumstances where he had not discussed the proposed farewell with members of Patient A's treating team, and the possibility that Patient A might misinterpret Mr Gaberman's actions, demonstrated that the judgment possessed, and care exercised by Mr Gaberman fell significantly below the relevant standard.
3. As acknowledged by Mr Gaberman, his failure to record the farewell in Patient A's records demonstrated that the care he exercised fell significantly below the relevant standard.

Improper or unethical conduct

1. The Commission contends that the conduct the subject of Particular 5 can be characterised as unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of both s 139B(1)(a) (conduct significantly below the standard), and s 139B(1)(l) (improper or unethical conduct) of the National Law.
2. In Health Care Complaints Commission v Yildirim [2021] NSWCATOD 146 at [187]-[189], the Tribunal (differently constituted) considered the question of whether conduct found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 139B(1)(a) could also be found to amount to conduct within the meaning of s 139B(1)(l): "187. In Attia v Health Care Complaints Commission [2017] NSWSC 1066 at [159]-[160], Walton J observed that s 139B(1)(l) is not a stand-alone example of unsatisfactory professional conduct. The use of the word 'other' - "Any other improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of the practitioner's profession" (emphasis added) - limits the operation of s 139B(1)(l) to conduct not falling within the definitions of unsatisfactory professional conduct in s 139B(1)(a)-(k). (See also Health Care Complaints Commission v Achurch [2019] NSWCATOD 20 at [31]; Health Care Complaints Commission v Hart [2021] NSWCATOD 36 at [47]). 188. In contrast, in Health Care Complaints Commission v Grygiel (Stay application) [2019] NSWCATOD 123, the Tribunal considered that as a matter of statutory construction, the same facts could establish unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of ss 139(1)(a) and 139(1)(l). 189. Undoubtedly, as a matter of fact the same act or omission by a health practitioner is capable of being characterised as 'improper and unethical' and also as demonstrating that the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised, by the practitioner fell below the relevant standard. However, that does not resolve the question of whether, having regard to the text and context of s 139(1), and in particular the opening words of s 139(1)(l), conduct found to fall within 139B(1)(a) can also be found to fall within one or more of paragraphs of s 139B(1)(a)-(k). We are not persuaded that the interpretation adopted by Walton J in Attia v Health Care Complaints Commission is plainly wrong and adopt that interpretation. Therefore, the question of whether Mr Yildirim's conduct found by us to fall within s 139B(1)(a) also amounts to 'other improper or unethical conduct', does not arise."
3. Referring to Health Care Complaints Commission v Day [2022] NSWCATOD 134 at [170], the Commission correctly points out that there is a "divergence of views" within NCAT about the proper interpretation of s 139B(1) of the National Law, specifically, the interrelationship between paragraphs (a) and (l). The Commission urges us to adopt the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal in Health Care Complaints Commission v Grygiel (Stay application) [2019] NSWCATOD 123 (Grygiel). In Grygiel, the Tribunal concluded that the same facts are capable of being found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of both ss 139B(1)(a) and 139B(1)(l) of the National Law.
4. The Commission does not contend that Walton J in Attia v Health Care Complaints Commission [2017] NSWSC 1066 (Attia) failed to "seriously consider" the proper meaning of s 139B(1) of the National Law, or the interrelationship between paragraphs (a) and (l). The Commission did not make considered submissions in support of its contention that the interpretation adopted by Walton J is "plainly wrong". In those circumstances we consider that we are bound by Attia.
5. Adopting that approach, it is unnecessary to decide whether the conduct in Particulars 5 and 6 amounts to "other improper or unethical conduct".

Particular 7

1. Particular 7 states: "7. By his conduct in particulars 2, 3, 4 and 5, the practitioner breached clause 4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Nurses (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, March 2018)."

Code of Conduct for Nurses

1. Clause 4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Nurses (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, March 2018) (the Code of Conduct) states: "4.1 Professional boundaries Professional boundaries allow nurses, the person and the person's nominated partners, family and friends, to engage safely and effectively in professional relationships, including where care involves personal and/or intimate contact. In order to maintain professional boundaries, there is a start and end point to the professional relationship, and it is integral to the nurse-person professional relationship. Adhering to professional boundaries promotes person-centred practice and protects both parties. To maintain professional boundaries, nurses must: a. recognise the inherent power imbalance that exists between nurses, people in their care and significant others and establish and maintain professional boundaries b. actively manage the person's expectations, and be clear about professional boundaries that must exist in professional relationships for objectivity in care and prepare the person for when the episode of care ends c. avoid the potential conflicts, risks, and complexities of providing care to those with whom they have a pre-existing non-professional relationship and ensure that such relationships do not impair their judgement. This is especially relevant for those living and working in small, regional or cultural communities and/or where there is long-term professional, social and/or family engagement d. avoid sexual relationships with persons with whom they have currently or had previously entered into a professional relationship. These relationships are inappropriate in most circumstances and could be considered unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct e. recognise when over-involvement has occurred, and disclose this concern to an appropriate person, whether this is the person involved or a colleague f. reflect on the circumstances surrounding any occurrence of over-involvement, document and report it, and engage in management to rectify or manage the situation g. in cases where the professional relationship has become compromised or ineffective and ongoing care is needed, facilitate arrangements for the continuing care of the person to another health practitioner, including passing on relevant clinical information (see also 3.3 Effective communication) h. actively address indifference, omission, disengagement/lack of care and disrespect to people that may reflect under-involvement, including escalating the issue to ensure the safety of the person if necessary i. avoid expressing personal beliefs to people in ways that exploit the person's vulnerability, are likely to cause them unnecessary distress, or may negatively influence their autonomy in decision-making (see the NMBA standards for practice), and j. not participate in physical assault such as striking, unauthorised restraining and/or applying unnecessary force."

Consideration

1. Particulars 2, 3 and 4 are neither admitted nor proven. Therefore, the question posed by Particular 7 is whether by the admitted conduct in Particular 5, Mr Gaberman breached cl 4.1 of the Code of Conduct. For convenience, we refer to the admitted conduct in Particular 5 by the shorthand "the conduct in Particular 5".
2. Mr Gaberman admits Particular 5(e), that is, that he "breached proper professional boundaries by embracing in a hug with Patient A of approximately one minute duration".
3. The chapeau to cl 4.1 of the Code of Conduct states that nurses must "maintain professional boundaries". It goes on to state that "to maintain professional boundaries, nurses" must do, or not do the things listed in pars (a)-(j) of cl 4.1 of the Code. While not expressly stated, we understand the Commission to contend that Mr Gaberman breached cl 4.1 of the Code by: failing to recognise the inherent power imbalance that exists between nurses and people in their care and establish and maintain professional boundaries (par (a)); failing to be clear about professional boundaries (par (b)); and by failing to recognise that he had become overly involved with Patient A (par (f)).
4. By his actions in hugging Patient A and the rest of the admitted conduct in Particular 5, Mr Gaberman breached cl 4.1 of the Code of Conduct. We find that Mr Gaberman breached par (a) and par (b) of cl 4.1. However, we are not persuaded that Mr Gaberman had become, and failed to recognise that he had become, overly involved with Patient A.
5. Particular 7 is established in part.

Particular 8

1. Particular 8 of Complaint 1 states: "8. By his conduct in particulars 5c and 5d, the practitioner breached clause 5.10 of the Search Patient and Staff Safety Procedure implemented by the … Local Health District."
2. Mr Gaberman admits Particular 8.
3. A question raised by Particular 8, which neither party addressed in these proceedings, is whether the "Search Patient and Staff Safety Procedure [name of LHD omitted]-PRO-0561-19" (the Procedure) operates to prohibit staff from bringing prohibited items, including lighters, onto the ward.
4. The Procedure was not included in the material filed by the Commission. At our request the Commission provided us a copy of the Procedure while our decision was reserved. Having reviewed that document, it appears arguable that the conduct of a staff member in bringing a lighter onto the ward is not caught by the Procedure. The apparent purpose of the Procedure is to provide guidance to staff about the circumstances where they are required/permitted to undertake searches of a patient's person and/or their possessions.
5. However, in circumstances where Mr Gaberman has admitted Particular 8 in writing, where he was legally represented when he made that admission, where it is likely there is a policy, formal or otherwise which prohibits staff from bringing onto the ward the "prohibited" items listed in cl 5.10 of the Procedure, we conclude that Particular 8 is established.

Particular 4

1. Particular 4 of Complaint 1 states: "4. On 31 October 2019, the practitioner dressed in costume to celebrate Halloween with Patient A without permission from the Nurse Unit Manager ('NUM')."
2. On 31 October 2019, Mr Gaberman and Patient A dressed in costume to celebrate Halloween. According to Mr Gaberman, he had informed Patient A and another patient in passing that he was rostered to work the night shift on Halloween, to which they said cheerfully, "we should all dress up for fun" and urged him to do so as well. Mr Gaberman dressed in army fatigues. Patient A dressed as a devil. The other patient wore make-up but not a costume.
3. Members of the nursing staff were not required to wear uniforms to work. The weight of evidence is that on occasions some staff and patients dressed in costume to celebrate special occasions such as Christmas and birthdays. The NUM throughout the period of the Complaint, Mr Lacey, confirmed that staff did not require permission to wear costumes to work. According to Mr Lacey, the only requirement was that any costume worn be suitable, for example, modest and not revealing. Ms Gordon and Mr Bruce-Allen stated that on occasion staff wore costumes, fun makeup, sunglasses, and other accessories and did not require permission to do so.
4. Ms Burgess was critical of Mr Gaberman's actions in wearing a costume to work on 31 October 2019. In her opinion, if a member of nursing staff was to wear a costume it should be in the context of an "all-inclusive celebration" and permission sought from management and the treating team. She said that a member of staff wearing a costume had the potential to be "triggering" for some acute patients.

Consideration

1. The available material does not support a finding that staff were required to obtain permission from a NUM to wear a costume to work. While not a common practice, the evidence reveals that on occasion staff wore costumes to work and did not obtain permission to do so. The premise on which Particular 4 rests is not established.
2. Whether it was, or was not, appropriate for a member of the nursing staff to attend work dressed in costume because, as Ms Burgess opines, that conduct has the potential to be triggering, is not to the point.

Particular 9

1. Particular 9 of Complaint 1 states: "9. The conduct in particulars 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Complaint One is repeated and relied upon in combination as a course of conduct involving a failure of the practitioner to maintain his professional boundaries with Patient A amounting to unsatisfactory professional conduct."
2. Particulars 2, 3, and 4 are not proven. Particular 5 is proven in part.
3. The conduct the subject of Particular 5 occurred on a single day. Of itself, it cannot be said to demonstrate a course of conduct, involving Mr Gaberman's failure to maintain professional boundaries with Patient A. Particular 9 must fail.

Conclusion

1. Particulars 5(b)-(e), 6, 8 and part of Particular 7 of Complaint 1 are established. That conduct amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 139B(1)(a) of the National Law.

Complaint 2

1. Complaint 2 states: "The practitioner is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B(1)(a) and/or (I) of the National Law in that the practitioner has: i. engaged in conduct that demonstrates the judgment possessed, or care exercised, by the practitioner in the practice of nursing is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience; and/or ii. engaged in improper or unethical conduct relating to the practice or purported practice of nursing. PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINT TWO 1. On or about 19 November 2018, the practitioner breached proper professional boundaries when he met with Patient B at [a café], located in … NSW. 2. On or about November/December 2018, the practitioner breached proper professional boundaries when he met with Patient B at a cafe in … NSW. 3. By his conduct in particulars 1 and 2, the practitioner breached clause 4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Nurses (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, March 2018)."
2. Mr Gaberman admits the conduct particularised by Complaint 2. In addition, he agrees that this conduct amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 139B(1)(a) of the National Law. However, Mr Gaberman disputes that the admitted conduct amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 139B(1)(l) of the National Law.

Mr Gaberman's account of the admitted conduct

1. Complaint 2 concerns two meetings held in local cafés between Mr Gaberman and a former patient of the Facility, Patient B. Those meetings took place about 14 months after Patient B had been discharged from the Facility. Patient B was then about 19.5 years of age.
2. In a written response, dated 20 April 2021, to questions asked by the Commission about those meetings, Mr Gaberman said Patient B contacted him at work about a year after she was discharged from the Facility. She asked after other members of staff, said that she was about to move overseas, and wanted to meet up to say good-bye and to thank him for the support she received while a patient. Mr Gaberman said he told Patient B that he would make enquiries about whether he was permitted to meet with a former patient, took her phone number and said that he would get back to her.
3. Mr Gaberman said that over the next couple of weeks he unsuccessfully attempted to find a policy or procedure which provided guidance on whether a nurse was permitted to have contact with a former patient. He concluded that that it was permissible to accept Patient B's invitation, reasoning that there was no policy or procedure expressly prohibiting contact with a former patient, a significant amount of time that had elapsed since Patient B's discharge, and having turned 18, Patient B could not return to the Facility.
4. According to Mr Gaberman, at the first meeting Patient B was in high spirits, talked about her travel and other plans and expressed her gratitude to him and other clinicians for the care she received at the Facility.
5. A few weeks after their first meeting, Patient B contacted Mr Gaberman and asked could they meet before she departed for overseas. He agreed. They met for about an hour. Mr Gaberman said that like the first meeting, the conversation was "polite and jovial", and each paid for their purchases. He wished Patient B the best for the future.
6. According to Mr Gaberman, he did not attempt to hide the fact that he had met with Patient B and spoke openly about and reflected on their meetings during clinical supervision. He said he "felt honoured to be part of [Patient B's] healing journey".
7. Mr Gaberman said he "never believed there was any sort of impropriety" and that he was therefore surprised when after the second meeting he was contacted by management and directed to have no further contact with Patient B because she was a former patient. When he asked what period after discharge must elapse before a person is no longer regarded to be a patient, he was surprised to be told by an LHD manager "never". He questioned that response, reasoning that it appeared to stigmatise a person with mental illness.
8. About eight months after the second meeting, Patient B left a message on Mr Gaberman's phone, advising that she had returned from overseas and asked to catch up. Mr Gaberman sent an SMS to Patient B advising that he was on holidays in a remote location, was unable to be contacted, and wished her well. On his return to work, he immediately notified Mr Lacey and Ms Couch. Following Ms Couch's instruction, he sent Patient B a message that he was not permitted to have any further contact with her.

Consideration

1. The issue raised by Complaint 2 is whether the decision to meet with Patient B demonstrated that Mr Gaberman's judgment fell significantly below the relevant standard.
2. There is no evidence to suggest, and nor does the Commission contend, that the meetings between Mr Gaberman and Patient B were not, as Mr Gaberman says, innocent and unremarkable. Nonetheless, as Mr Gaberman now acknowledges, his decision to meet with Patient B demonstrated poor judgment, especially given that Patient B had been discharged from the Facility only 12 months earlier. While an adult at the time of the meetings, she was, nonetheless, a young person with a history of mental illness. In those circumstances, Mr Gaberman's actions in meeting with Patient B demonstrated judgment significantly below the relevant standard.
3. In these proceedings, Ms Burgess said that a patient-practitioner relationship is a relationship that exists "in perpetuity" and therefore the obligations under the Code of Conduct apply indefinitely and "any personal contact [between practitioner and patient] is inappropriate irrespective of when it occurs". We were not taken to any authority for that proposition. While the subject of much debate in these proceedings, it is unnecessary to express a view about Ms Burgess' opinion.
4. For the reasons discussed above, it is not necessary to consider whether the conduct the subject of Complaint 2 amounts to unprofessional professional conduct within the meaning of s 139B(l)(l) of the National Law.

Complaint 3

1. Complaint 3 states: "1. During Patient C's admission to [the Facility] on a date unknown, the practitioner breached proper professional boundaries when he sat on the floor behind a bed in Patient C's room with Patient C during which time the practitioner rested his head on Patient C's shoulders and Patient C rested her head on his shoulders. 2. By his conduct in particular 1, the practitioner breached clause 4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Nurses (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, March 2018)."
2. By Complaint 3, the Commission alleges that on a date unknown Mr Gaberman: 1. sat with Patient C on the floor behind a bed in Patient C's room on the ward; 2. permitted Patient C to rest her head on his shoulders; 3. rested his head on Patient C's shoulders; 4. by the above conduct, Mr Gaberman failed to maintain professional boundaries with Patient C.
3. Mr Gaberman says he cannot recall the incident about which the Commission complains. However, he admits on occasion having sat with Patient C on the floor behind a bed in her room and permitting Patient C to rest her head on his shoulders. According to Mr Gaberman, this occurred following incidents of self-harm and where Patient C was extremely distressed. He denies having ever rested his head on Patient C's shoulder. Mr Gaberman contends that the admitted conduct did not breach cl 4.1 of the Code of Conduct.
4. Patient C has a history of self-harm. The clinical notes reveal that on occasion she would escape into her room, sit behind her bed, and cut herself.
5. Complaint C is based on a report made by Ms Soliman. In a statement prepared for these proceedings, Ms Soliman stated that on one occasion she witnessed Mr Gaberman and Patient C: "[S]itting on the floor behind the bed in [Patient C's] room. They were facing each other and had their heads resting on each other's shoulders. I recall one of them saying that they 'couldn't break the hug' which I took to mean they did not want to be interrupted. I cannot recall the exact date of this incident. I was concerned as I thought [Patient C] and Lane were overly familiar and close to each other".
6. In cross-examination Mr Soliman said she did not report the incident until about 18 months after it occurred.
7. In a letter to the Commission dated 20 April 2021, Mr Gaberman said that some patients engaged in deliberate acts of self-injury following a "distressing incident". He claimed that this would often follow a "predictable pattern" whereby the patient: retreated into their room; "almost always" concealed themselves from nursing staff, and, engaged in self-harm using a hidden instrument until interrupted by a member of the nursing staff or reported the injury to staff. Mr Gaberman said that he had been trained to respond to such incidents by remaining in close proximity to the patient which sometimes required getting down on the floor.
8. With respect to the alleged incident described by Ms Soliman, Mr Gaberman wrote that he had no recollection of that incident or of saying "I couldn't break the hug". He said that while a patient of the Facility, Patient C had self-harmed on many occasions. On those occasions he was on duty and went to her assistance, Patient C: "[B]ecame very emotional (crying uncontrollably), and would sometimes put her head on my shoulder and sob deeply for some time. I would try my best to comfort her, sometimes putting my arm around her shoulder while she cried…"
9. In an affidavit dated 9 December 2022 prepared for these proceedings, Mr Gaberman repeated his claim that he had no recollection of the incident reported by Ms Soliman. In oral evidence, Mr Gaberman said that on those occasions he comforted Patient C following incidents of self-harm, it was not uncommon for Patient C to slump forward and to require physical support. He said when this occurred, he permitted Patient C to rest her head on his shoulder. He claimed other staff members also sat with Patient C on the floor of her room following episodes of self-harm. He said it was necessary to sit on the floor behind Patient C's bed because the bed was bolted to the floor. In cross-examination, Mr Gaberman denied ever resting his head on Patient C's shoulder.
10. Several witnesses, including Ms Gordon, Mr Bruce-Allen and Mr Dilli agreed with Mr Gaberman's claim that Patient C was prone to falls, pseudo-seizures and at times required physical support to prevent her slumping. Mr Bruce-Allen agreed with the proposition that Patient C often became dysregulated and would isolate and sometimes barricade herself in her room and that these incidents were often generated by feelings of rejection. He said that on occasion Patient C had slumped against him and he had not pushed her away, believing to do so would be inconsistent with the principles underpinning "trauma informed counselling". While acknowledging that there was not a one-size-fits-all approach to how best to respond to a dysregulated patient, Mr Dilli said that he would not encourage staff to sit on the floor with a patient or to permit the patient to put their head on their shoulder.

Opinion of Ms Burgess

1. In a report dated 16 June 2021 referring to the incident described by Ms Soliman, Ms Butler stated that Mr Gaberman's behaviour "indicate[d] the creation of a close and inappropriate special relationship with the use of close physical trust between Mr Gaberman and [Patient C]". Ms Burgess reasoned: "4.70 According to Hanna and Suplee 'the patient's cultural practices might dictate when and how touch should be elicited during these specific times. Patients may also perceive touch differently and may be more inclined to consider an experience as intimate' (Hanna & Suplee). Hanna and Suplee state that the patients that are most vulnerable and at most risk of boundary violations tend to have characteristics including 'female gender, have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and/or other personality disorders, complain of emptiness or boredom, are articulate and have reasonable social skills, have a history of childhood or physical abuse, like to keep secrets with staff and may wish to be touched, hugged, and reassured that they're liked' (Hanna & Suplee). Taking the above into consideration, I consider Mr Gaberman's conduct to be significantly below the standards of a Registered Nurse."
2. In her report, Ms Burgess stated that if Patient C had self-harmed, the correct approach would be to provide Patient C with medical attention, to create a safe place by removing sharp objects and to escalate the self-harming episode to the treating team for clinical review.
3. In answer to questions from the Tribunal, Ms Burgess stated that the correct approach to the circumstances described by Mr Gaberman would have been to activate the duress alarm.

Consideration

1. As pointed out by the Commission, Ms Soliman did not resile under questioning from her claim that she saw Mr Gaberman place his head on Patient C's shoulder while sitting on the floor in her room. Arguably, it was not in Ms Soliman's interests to admit failing to report an incident which she now describes as "concerning". However, in circumstances where Mr Gaberman denied placing his head on Patient C's shoulders, where Ms Soliman was reliant on her memory of events which probably took place 18 months earlier and where there is no contemporaneous or supporting evidence, we are not satisfied that Mr Gaberman placed his head on Patient C's shoulder while sitting on the floor in her room.
2. Therefore, the question posed is whether by the admitted conduct - sitting on the floor behind a bed in Patient C's room with Patient C during which time Patient C rested her head on Mr Gaberman's shoulders - Mr Gaberman "breached proper professional boundaries". Context is critical in making that assessment. If, as claimed by Mr Gaberman, his conduct was in response to finding Patient C sitting on the floor, sobbing uncontrollably following an incident of self-harm, it would not, in our view, amount to a failure to maintain professional boundaries. However, if, as Ms Soliman apparently believed, there was no reason for Mr Gaberman to be sitting on the floor with Patient C's room with her head on his shoulder, this would probably amount to a failure to maintain professional boundaries.
3. In circumstances where the available material does not enable us to identify when the alleged incident occurred or the circumstances surrounding that incident, where Mr Gaberman has given a plausible explanation for the impugned conduct, we cannot be satisfied that that conduct can be characterised as a failure to maintain proper professional boundaries.
4. In reaching that conclusion we note that Ms Burgess' opinion that if a patient had self-harmed, the appropriate response would be to activate the duress alarm was not one shared by any of the witnesses who were questioned about this issue, including Mr Lacey.
5. Reasonable minds must differ about whether the approach adopted by Mr Gaberman when confronted with a patient who had self-harmed was best practice. However, that is not determinative of whether the admitted conduct amounted to a failure to maintain proper professional boundaries.
6. Complaint 3 is not established.

Complaint 4

1. Given our findings that Complaint 3 and most of Complaint 1, are not established, Complaint 4 requires us to decide: 1. Whether Particulars 5(b)-(e) and 6 of Complaint 1, and Particular 1 and 2 of Complaint 2 each justify a finding of professional misconduct; or 2. Whether, taken together, two or more of the particulars of the proven or admitted conduct justify a finding of professional misconduct.
2. Mr Gaberman does not admit Complaint 4.
3. Whether the above conduct amounts to professional conduct, requires us to decide whether that conduct is of a "sufficiently serious nature" to justify an order for suspension or cancellation. That exercise involves "an evaluative judgment to be made by the Tribunal as to the nature and seriousness of the conduct": Chen v Health Care Complaints Commission (2017) 95 NSWLR 334; [2017] NSWCA 186 at [20] (Basten JA). The seriousness of the conduct may take colour not only from the acts or omissions in question but also from the circumstances in which they occurred: Health Care Complaints Commission v Robinson [2022] NSWCA 164 at [35]. The definition of professional misconduct is focused on the nature of the conduct, not whether an order for suspension or cancellation should be made: Health Care Complaints Commission v Karalasingham [2007] NSWCA 267 at [67] (Basten JA). The impugned conduct is to be measured by the extent to which it departs from proper standards and not by reference to the worst cases. The latter approach risks the misconduct of some practitioners indirectly setting the standards to be applied by the Tribunal: Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 at 638; [1997] NSWSC 297.
4. In evaluating whether the impugned conduct is of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the suspension or cancellation of Mr Gaberman's registration, we must consider the circumstances that bear on the objective assessment of that conduct. These include the nature and duration of the conduct; whether the conduct was deliberate or inadvertent; the likely risk of harm to the patient posed by that conduct; and any mitigating factors.
5. Of the conduct found to amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct, we consider the most serious to be Mr Gaberman's conduct in farewelling Patient A (Particular 5 of Complaint 1). As stated, by that conduct Mr Gaberman failed to comply with his obligation to maintain professional boundaries with Patient A. There is no evidence, and nor is it claimed, that the farewell caused Patient A harm or distress or derailed her scheduled discharge. However, given her youth and medical history it had the potential to do so. Further, whether a patient did or did not suffer harm as a consequence of a practitioner's unsatisfactory professional conduct does not determine the question of whether that conduct was of a sufficiently serious nature to justify an order for suspension or cancellation.
6. We accept, and the Commission does not suggest otherwise, that Mr Gaberman's intentions were well-meaning. However, in circumstances where Mr Gaberman had failed to discuss the farewell and the manner in which it was to be conducted with other members of the treating team, where he was reliant on his own judgment in concluding that it would be beneficial to Patient A, his conduct was undoubtedly of a serious nature. While, in our view, that conduct comes close to the line, it was not sufficiently serious to warrant the suspension or cancellation of Mr Gaberman's registration. In making this assessment, we have taken into account several factors, including Mr Gaberman's disciplinary history. Had this been an example of conduct for which Mr Gaberman had previously been disciplined, the contention that it was sufficiently serious in nature to warrant suspension or cancellation of his registration would be more powerful (see, Health Care Complaints Commission v Robinson [2022] NSWCA 164 at [36]; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (a pseudonym) (2021) 106 NSWLR 383; [2021] NSWCA 339 at [172]).
7. While undoubtedly serious, the conduct the subject of Complaint 2 was not sufficiently serious to warrant the suspension or cancellation of Mr Gaberman's registration, either alone or in combination with the other instances of unsatisfactory professional conduct, in particular, the farewell to Patient A.
8. Complaint 4 is not established.

Protective orders

1. Where a complaint made under the National Law is admitted or proven in part, NCAT may exercise any of the powers in s 149A of the National Law. These include the powers to caution, reprimand, and to impose conditions on the practitioner's registration and to order the practitioner to complete an educational course specified by the Tribunal. Because the complaint of professional misconduct is not proven, the power to suspend or cancel Mr Gaberman's registration cannot be exercised: s 149C(1)(b) of the National Law.
2. In exercising the power to make protective orders, the paramount consideration is the protection of the health and safety of the public: s 3B of the National Law.
3. In these proceedings, Mr Gaberman said that he does not intend to return to the profession of nursing because he found his treatment by his employer together with the prosecution of the Complaint by the Commission to the Tribunal to be a humiliating and traumatic experience. He said he had no intention of putting either himself or his family through that experience again.
4. We accept that Mr Gaberman does not intend to return to nursing. However, in considering the appropriate form of orders we must assume that in the future Mr Gaberman might change his mind.
5. We have decided to issue Mr Gaberman with a reprimand. The reprimand will appear on the public record of Mr Gaberman's registration maintained by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and serves to denounce Mr Gaberman's conduct.
6. In addition, we have decided to impose a condition on Mr Gaberman's registration requiring that, before returning to any position in nursing, he satisfactorily complete a course approved by the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales that addresses the obligation imposed by the Code of Conduct to maintain professional boundaries with patients. In reaching that conclusion, we note that Mr Gaberman now acknowledges that, in meeting with Patient B, he breached cl 4.1 of the Code of Conduct. However, his initial view that those meetings did not offend the Code, points to the need for Mr Gaberman to obtain further training on, and to reflect on, his obligations under the Code of Conduct.

Costs

1. The Commission seeks an order that Mr Gaberman pay its costs of the proceedings. The Commission contends that even if the Tribunal were to find some of the Complaint not proven, including the complaint of professional misconduct, there would be no basis to depart from the general "rule" and Mr Gaberman should be required to pay all of its costs.
2. In exercising the power to award costs, conferred by cl 13 of Sch 5D to the National Law, the general "rule" is that costs follow the event: Health Care Complaints Commission v Philipiah [2013] NSWCA 342 ("Philipiah") at [42]; Qasim v Health Care Complaints Commission [2015] NSWCA 282 at [85]; and Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307 at [51].
3. In Philipiah at [43], Emmett JA after stating the general rule, referred to "factors that might militate against the recovery by the Commission of all of its costs in particular proceedings". One of the factors to which Emmett JA referred was "that the Commission failed to establish all of the particulars of professional misconduct alleged. Where discrete elements of the conduct complained of are not established, that may be relevant".
4. Given that the Commission failed to establish two of the four complaints in the Complaint, the question arises in exercising the discretion to order Mr Gaberman to pay the Commission's costs, whether he should be required to pay all, or part of the Commission's costs. While the parties touched on this issue in oral submissions, fairness demands that, having been informed of our decision, they be given the opportunity to make further submissions.
5. We urge the parties to use their best endeavours to reach agreement about the Commission's application for costs. If agreement cannot be reached, the parties are invited to make written submissions on the issue of costs. In addition, we invite the parties to comment on our preliminary view that the determination of the Commission's application for costs can be dealt with on the papers without an oral hearing.

Orders 1. Pursuant to s 149A(1) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), Mr Gaberman is reprimanded. 2. Mr Gaberman's registration is subject to the condition that before returning to work as a nurse Mr Gaberman must: 1. complete an educational course approved by the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales that covers the obligations imposed on members of the nursing profession by cl 4.1 of the Code of Conduct for Nurses (Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, March 2018) (the Course); and 2. provide documentary evidence to the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales of satisfactory completion of the Course. 1. If the parties do not reach agreement on the issue of costs within 14 days of the date of this decision, the Commission must file and serve brief submissions in support of its application for costs. 2. Within 28 days of receiving the Commission's submissions on costs, Mr Gaberman must file and serve brief submissions in reply. 3. Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the parties must notify the Tribunal and each other whether they consent to the issue of costs being determined "on the papers" as permitted by s 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar

Amendments 14 June 2023 - Coversheet corrected - Decision Order (4) - "Commissioner's" replaced with "Commission's". DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 14 June 2023