Health Ombudsman v WFB [2025] QCAT 3

Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) applies to these conditions.

Pursuant to section 109(3) of the HO Act, the review period for the conditions imposed by this decision is six (6) months.

Pursuant to section 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent's registration is suspended for a period of six (6) months.

Pursuant to section 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action taken by the Health

CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - HEALTH CARE

PROFESSIONALS - PSYCHOLOGISTS - where the

respondent was a registered psychologist who breached professional boundaries by engaging in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient - where the parties agree as to facts and characterisation - whether the conduct constitutes professional misconduct - where the respondent demonstrates insight and remorse - what is the appropriate sanction

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

Psychology Board of Australia v IVX (Regulation and Review) [2016] VCAT 35

• [1] This is a disciplinary matter involving an allegation that the respondent breached professional boundaries by engaging in an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient.
• [2] After commencing the relationship, the respondent then failed to make appropriate arrangements for or provide an appropriate handover of her patient's care.
• [3] At the relevant time, the respondent was registered as a psychologist. She is still registered.
• [4] The facts and circumstances as agreed between the parties are set out in a Statement of Agreed Facts. The parties are also in agreement with respect to the appropriate characterisation of the conduct.
• [5] In summary, the respondent had a clinical relationship with the patient from November 2019 to February 2020, and then again from December 2020 to 14 June 2021. They commenced a personal and sexual relationship in June 2021. They are now married.
• [6] The parties agree that the conduct amounts to professional misconduct as defined in limbs (a) and (b) of the definitions of 'professional misconduct' in section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ('National Law').
• [7] Since 2010, the Psychology Board of Australia ('Board') has adopted the Australian Psychological Society ('APS') Code of Ethics ('Code of Ethics') as the code of ethics, conduct and practice for registered psychologists.
• [8] Relevantly, the Code of Ethics provides:

C1.1 Psychologists avoid engaging in disreputable conduct that reflects on their ability to practise as a psychologist.

C1.2 Psychologists avoid engaging in disreputable conduct that reflects negatively on the profession or discipline of psychology.

C4.1 Psychologists do not exploit people with whom they have had a professional relationship.

C4.3 Psychologists do not engage in sexual activity with a client or anybody who is closely related to one of their clients or former clients within two

(2) years after terminating the professional relationship.

• [9] The respondent was aware of the prohibition on such relationships because she discussed it with the patient and eventually transferred his care.
• [10] At the heart of the impugned conduct is the power imbalance by virtue of the therapeutic relationship.
• [11] In Psychology Board of Australia v IVX (Regulation and Review),1 the Tribunal said:2

Clients entrust their mind and their wellbeing to psychologists. That high level of trust must never be exploited.

A clear prohibition on dual relationships reflects the recognised risk that the inherent power imbalance in the professional relationship will distort the personal relationship, with the potential to do very real harm to the client or former client. The more vulnerable the client the greater the risk of harm.

• [12] The respondent failed to provide an appropriate handover of the patient's care in that she failed to refer him to a psychologist external to her practice. Instead, she referred him to a counsellor she employed. The respondent admits that she ought to have known that the counsellor did not have the requisite training or experience to manage the client's presentation and that he should have been referred externally to the respondent's practice. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that each of the allegations amount to professional misconduct.

• [13] The respondent self-notified and admitted the nature and extent of her relationship with the patient.
• [14] She has taken steps regarding her professional development and education and the management of her practice.
• [15] She has produced reports to the Tribunal opining her behaviour was out of character. She has provided character references. Since May 2022, the respondent has had

1 [2016] VCAT 35.

conditions placed on her registration including a condition prohibiting her from having any contact with male patients and a condition requiring supervision.

• [16] This jurisdiction is primarily protective, not punitive. The health and safety of the public is paramount.
• [17] General deterrence is very significant in this case. So, too, is the maintenance of professional standards and public confidence in the profession.
• [18] The Tribunal has been referred to a number of cases which are only used as a guideline as no two cases are the same.
• [19] In light of the conduct here, the Tribunal is of the view that a period of suspension is required and that the period should be for six (6) months. This takes into account the need for general deterrence and reflects the length of time the respondent has been under conditions and her attempts at rehabilitation.
• [20] The Tribunal also considers that a short period of supervision will assist the respondent to transition back into practice once her registration is unconditional.

Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) ('HO Act'), the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.

Pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the respondent is reprimanded.

Pursuant to section 107(3)(b) of the HO Act, conditions are imposed on the respondent's registration in the form of Annexure A to this decision.

Part 7, Division 11, Subdivision 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) applies to these conditions.

Pursuant to section 109(3) of the HO Act, the review period for the conditions imposed by this decision is six (6) months.

Pursuant to section 107(3)(d) of the HO Act, the respondent's registration is suspended for a period of six (6) months.

Pursuant to section 62(2)(a)(ii) of the HO Act, the immediate registration action taken by the Health Ombudsman on 23 May 2022 is set aside.

No order as to costs.