Khademi v Health Ombudsman [2025] QCAT 456

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Aggarwal v Health Ombudsman [2024] QCAT 385

Heath v Medical Board of Australia [2024] QCAT 163

YBCG v Health Ombudsman [2024] QCAT 516

C Templeton instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

• [1] By letter from the Office of the Health Ombudsman dated 7 April 2025, the Health Ombudsman took immediate registration action against the applicant by suspending his registration. The immediate registration action was taken after the Health Ombudsman received information from the Queensland Police Service on 31 March 2025 that the applicant had been charged with the following criminal offences:

(a) 1 x sexual assault pursuant to section 352(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) ('Criminal Code Act'); and

(b) 1 x unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassing or abuse and uses/threatens violence pursuant to section 359(E)(1) and (3)(a) of the Criminal Code Act.

• [2] The applicant was invited to provide a submission in response to the decision notice. On 24 April 2025, the applicant's legal representative wrote to the Health Ombudsman providing a submission and character references. On 21 May 2025, the Health Ombudsman considered the submission and informed the applicant that the original decision to suspend was confirmed and the applicant's registration remains suspended.
• [3] The applicant applies, pursuant to section 63(1) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) ('HO Act'), for review of the decision of the respondent to take immediate registration action suspending him pursuant to sections 57 and 58(1) of the HO Act. The applicant submits that the decision of the respondent was not the correct and preferable decision, but instead conditions should have been imposed on the applicant's right to practise.

• [4] Pursuant to s 94 of the HO Act, the Tribunal is given jurisdiction to review a decision by the Health Ombudsman to take immediate registration action in relation to a registered health practitioner. Section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) provides:

(1) The purpose of the review of a reviewable decision is to produce the correct and preferable decision.

(2) The tribunal must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.

(1) In a proceeding for a review of a reviewable decision, the tribunal may -

(a) confirm or amend the decision; or

(b) set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or

(c) set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.

immediate registration action, in relation to a registered health practitioner, means -

(a) suspending, or imposing a condition on, the practitioner's registration; or

(b) accepting an undertaking from the practitioner.

(1) The health ombudsman may take immediate registration action under this division in relation to a registered health practitioner if -

(a) the health ombudsman reasonably believes that -

(i) because of the practitioner's health, conduct or performance, the practitioner poses a serious risk to persons; and

(ii) it is necessary to take the action to protect public health or safety; or

(d) the health ombudsman reasonably believes the action is otherwise in the public interest.

• [8] The Tribunal notes the submission made by the applicant that the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HR Act') is relevant to the considerations that are the subject of the application. In this regard, the Tribunal notes the decisions of Heath v Medical Board of Australia[1] and YBCG v Health Ombudsman,[2] where Deputy President Dann DCJ held that the Tribunal must:

(a) apply the HR Act; and

(b) interpret statutory provisions, or make a decision, in a way which is compatible with human rights.

• [9] The Tribunal also notes the submission by the applicant that immediate action ought to be the least onerous necessary to address the relevant risk. While the health and safety of the public must remain paramount, the impact of the immediate action on the health practitioner cannot be underestimated.[3]
• [10] The applicant is charged with criminal conduct against a female staff member who was also a patient. The allegations are set out in some detail in the QP9 which has been provided to the Tribunal.
• [11] The applicant has been in medical practice for 38 years. Since 2015, he moved to a medical practice and is the only doctor working at that practice. He has practised continuously at that practice for the past ten years up to his suspension. He employs a nurse, a receptionist and his wife as office manager. The Tribunal notes that the applicant sees approximately 30 patients a day or 150 patients in a week, of which 50-55% are females. The applicant intends to contest the criminal charges and has spent a considerable sum up to $150,000 in costs to date. His income from his medical practice is his only source of income.
• [12] In considering the paramount consideration of protecting the public from risk of harm, the applicant submits that the Tribunal should take into account the following objective circumstances:[4]

the applicant has a history of employing and supervising female staff;

the applicant has approximately 50% of his regular patients as females. There is no suggestion of any other incident involving a patient;

the applicant has never been the subject of a criminal allegation in the past or any similar allegation resulting in disciplinary conduct;

the sexual assault is one isolated incident alleged by one employee;

there is only one complainant;

the employee was employed by the practice for four months;

the employee has been a patient of the applicant since became a patient [sic].

• [13] The respondent submits that the action was taken against the applicant because:

(a) the applicant poses a serious risk to persons and the action is necessary to protect public health and safety; and

(b) the action is in the public interest.

• [14] It is submitted by the respondent, and the Tribunal accepts, that the charges are serious criminal charges. The Tribunal notes the submission of the respondent with respect to the public interest and its submission that, having regard to the public interest and the need to protect the public from the serious risk posed by the applicant, it was reasonable for the respondent to suspend the applicant's registration.
• [15] The Tribunal notes the submissions made by the respondent with respect to public interest considerations and the relevant features (if proven) set out by the respondent, having regard to the complainant being a young vulnerable female sexually assaulted under the guise of legitimate medical care and treatment, and in the context of a significant power imbalance.
• [16] The Tribunal notes the respondent's submissions that:

(a) the applicant exploited the vulnerability of the complainant;

(b) the applicant's actions against the complainant of sexual assault and stalking/harassment are suggestive of an undeterred desire and persistence to obtain sexual gratification; and

(c) in the circumstances, the decision was the proper and protective, proportionate, least onerous, interim response to the criminal charges pending their finalisation and any subsequent disciplinary action.

• [17] The Tribunal notes that the allegations against the applicant are, as serious as they are, made by one female complainant. The Tribunal notes that it would appear that the applicant has otherwise not been the subject of any disciplinary or criminal action in the past. Weighing then the competing interests, in particular the public interest, the presumption of innocence as set out in the HR Act, the maintenance of public confidence in the regulator, and the need for action to be proportionate, the Tribunal considers that the suspension of the applicant's medical registration was not proportionate having regard to the risk to public safety, as the Tribunal considers that the risk involves female patients and does not involve male patients.
• [18] The Tribunal is of the view that, having regard to the applicant's need to continue to work to support his family of six children, general living expenses and legal fees, a condition be imposed on the applicant requiring him to treat only male patients and not have any female employees. The Tribunal is of the view that condition will sufficiently mitigate the risk posed by the applicant and the suspension of his registration is not required.
• [19] Having intimated to the parties that the Tribunal took the view that this condition would ameliorate what was otherwise a significant risk to female staff/patients, the parties were able to agree on orders. The Tribunal in the circumstances, makes the orders as proposed by the parties.

[1] [2024] QCAT 163.

[2] [2024] QCAT 516.

[3] Aggarwal v Health Ombudsman [2024] QCAT 385 (Judicial Member Dick SC), 8 [31].

[4] Applicant's written submissions, filed in the Tribunal 4 June 2025, 6 [28]-[31].