Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia v Willis [2026] QCAT 54

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Medical Board of Australia v Dolar [2012] QCAT 271

Midwifery Board of Australia v Willox [2019] VCAT 1180

Medical Board of Australia v Zimmerman [2023] QCAT 248

[1] The respondent was first granted registration as a medical radiation practitioner on 4 January 2008. He was born on 6 August 1951 so at the time of the hearing he was 74 years of age. Prior to the establishment of the Board, he had practiced his profession for many years. A contested hearing was held on 2 February and the respondent represented himself as he had done throughout the long disciplinary process leading up to the hearing, except for a brief period when his Union assisted him.

[2] His disciplinary problems that brought him eventually to the Tribunal, commenced with a notification to the Office of the Health Ombudsman ('OHO') in June 2020 by a young woman ('PH') who worked at a pharmacy close to where the respondent worked in a radiology practice in a town in South-East Queensland. PH had attended the practice on 16 March 2020 for a kidney x-ray which was undertaken by the respondent. It is not disputed that he attended at PH's workplace approximately once a month to collect medications and he had met PH in those circumstances.

[3] The notification alleged boundary violations after the March appointment by way of personal comments about her. I infer that he became aware that PH was uncomfortable about his behaviour at the pharmacy, as a result of which he caused a letter to be delivered to her at her workplace on or about 26 May 2020. PH complained to the OHO soon after.

[4] Perhaps as an ominous portent of what was to follow, the respondent's first reaction to receiving notification of the complaint, was to make his own complaint to the OHO in which he alleged (among other things) that PH "openly lies to the Ombudsman that I try to justify my behaviour. She is also malicious in that she does not include my letter for judgement.".

[5] Ahpra then commenced an investigation. Ground 4 in the Original Referral filed by the Board on 11 December 2023 is an allegation of professional misconduct and/or unprofessional conduct in that between 15 October 2021 and 9 November 2021 the respondent communicated with Ahpra staff about the Board and/or Ahpra staff in a disrespectful, threatening and inappropriate manner.

[6] In his Response filed 29 January 2024, the respondent does not dispute the communications by him as particularised in Ground 4. He states:

I did have severe depression and anxiety in the past when I sent offensive and inappropriate comments to the AHPRA team, and for this, I am most profoundly sorry.

[7] Insofar as this statement in early 2024 could be indicative of remorse and/or insight, such a proposition is strongly disputed by the Board. In particular, its present position is dictated by similar threatening and offensive themes evident in an email sent by the respondent to the Board's solicitor on 31 January 2025, and in the way he conducted himself during the final hearing on 2 February 2026.

[8] On 24 November 2020, Ahpra advised the respondent through his Union which was then assisting him, that it proposed to take immediate registration action by way of suspension. It is clear from the extensive material in the Hearing Brief ('HB') that the Board was then primarily focused on risk to female patients, based on the respondent's own responses to the complaint and including his letter to PH in June 2020. In that letter (by reference to details in PH's complaint) he wrote:

The makeup (i.e. the makeup he alleges she wore to the appointment) would not have been for my female receptionist, or the female sonographer normally rostered...

So I started probing (verbally), albeit rather heavily I must admit, by asking where the girl with the glasses (and learning your first name from other staff as I had forgotten in the interim), and trying to force conversation with you when other staff served me.

I have included my contact details in case you have any comment to make by text or email. Communication is always essential in all relationships.

[9] In its notice of proposed immediate action, the Board referred to email correspondence to the OHO from the respondent dated 26 June 2020 in which he denied any wrongdoing and stated that, in relation to PH:

I was merely fishing to see if there was any basis for my suspicions, and was quickly concluding that there wasn't, and that I was making an absolute fool of myself.

[10] During its investigations to that point, Ahpra had spoken to another young woman ('BQ'), who had been a receptionist at the respondent's workplace. She alleged that he made certain inappropriate comments (referring to another receptionist as "the receptionist with big breasts", and "oh BQ you should get a sugar daddy." This complaint was incorporated into Ground 3 in the Original Referral.

[11] A submission was made to the Board by the respondent's Union representative in which it was disputed that he posed a serious risk to female patients and stating

Examination of the complaints reveal Mr Willis's alleged conduct to be relatively minor in nature. At its highest, Mr Willis has engaged in outdated methods and styles of communication.

[12] These propositions were never tested. The Board suspended the respondent's registration on 1 December 2020, and he did not seek to review that decision.

[13] On 8 October 2021, the first notification was referred to a performance and professional standards panel pursuant to section 182 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ('National Law').

[14] It is clear from the material in the HB, that throughout this period, the respondent was involved in multiple legal disputes including a Fair Work dispute with his former employer at the radiology practice, and a dispute over his living arrangements.

[15] I infer that as a result of the behavior particularised in Ground 4, the Board repealed its decision to refer the first notification to the panel on 10 December 2021, and instead referred his conduct in dealing with Ahpra to the OHO.

[16] The Board acknowledges that the delay in finalising the disciplinary process is both significant and unacceptable. Mr Underwood, on behalf of the Board, tendered a chronology which sets out the various steps that were taken from the original notification in June 2020 until the hearing date.

[17] As a result of the respondent's behavior particularised in Ground 4, I infer that the Board decided to order that the respondent undergo and independent health assessment. The respondent was not willing to have the assessment and indicated that he did not intend to return to his practice as a medical radiation practitioner. He provided letters from his GP Dr Zielinski who had the capacity to practice in his profession. The doctor gave evidence at the hearing which is discussed later in these reasons.

[18] The process involving the proposed health assessment took approximately 21 months, and by the time the Board filed its Referral on 11 December 2023, 3.5 years had elapsed since the first notification. Apart from a short period when he was assisted by the Union, the respondent has represented himself. This has certainly contributed to the delay.

[19] The Tribunal Referral proceeded at a reasonable pace, given the respondent's self-representation, until the respondent failed in his attempt to have a witness called at the hearing. The witness was an Ahpra employee who had investigated the matter and who was the recipient of some of the impugned communications the subject of Ground 4. She had not provided an affidavit.

[20] At the time of this failed attempt at a directions hearing before the Deputy President, the matter was listed for a 2 day hearing in September 2024.

[21] A week before that scheduled hearing, the respondent filed an application to appeal the Deputy President's decision in the Court of Appeal. This necessitated the de-listing of the hearing date. Not surprisingly, the appeal was dismissed by a single Judge of the Court of Appeal on 4 March 2025. The respondent again caused delay by attempting to appeal against that decision which was unsuccessful.

[22] On 18 August 2025, the Referral was listed for hearing on 26-27 November 2025. Those dates were vacated at the respondent's request on 16 September and the matter was listed for a two-day hearing commencing on 2 February 2026.

[23] Delay in finalising disciplinary proceedings is most commonly relevant to issues of insight and rehabilitation during the relevant period. It can also be relevant to sanction.

[24] By the time the hearing proceeded on 2 February, all three female witnesses scheduled to appear remotely had indicated to the Board's lawyers that they did not wish to appear. It is entirely understandable that these women would be reluctant to re-visit events which occurred almost 6 years ago. The respondent submits that the witnesses, in particular PH and BQ, did not appear because they were not honest.

[25] The Board was given leave to amend the Referral and an Amended Referral was filed by leave. Ground 1 is confined to the letter delivered to PH by the respondent on the 26 May 2020. Grounds 2 and 3 were omitted and Ground 4 remains unchanged.

[26] I reject the respondent's submission that PH and BQ did not wish to appear because of their untruthfulness. In relation to PH, the tenor of her evidence (that the respondent had shown a professionally inappropriate interest in her) is strongly supported by his own words in that letter.

[27] Ground 4 is really uncontested. In response to questions from me, the respondent said from the bar table that he now regretted saying those things to Ahpra staff as particularised in Ground 4. His position is that he was depressed and suffering from undiagnosed ADHD which caused him to react as he did.

[28] As indicated earlier, the Board attempted on many occasions to have the respondent medically assessed independently which he resisted. The only medical evidence on this issue, comes from the respondent's GP Dr Zielinski. He does not have mental health specialist qualifications. He gave evidence via the telephone from his car. He did not have the respondent's medical records and gave evidence from his memory. He told the Tribunal that the ADHD was made by an unnamed specialist in 2022 or 2023 who prescribed the first course of medication, and that he, Dr Zielinski, has renewed those prescriptions every 6 months since that time. At best, his opinion is that ADHD may lead the sufferer to say and do things that hurt other people without realising.

[29] The respondent has recognised that his responses to Ahpra was due to his anger over its actions which he regarded as unfair. In an email to EJ (an Aphra investigator) on 30 May 2022, he wrote:

AHPRA has failed to recognise that the unbridled anger in my past emails to your investigation team arose out of your unnecessary action, and your lack of impartiality. It was not an indication of mental health issues.

[30] This was at a time when he was strongly resisting the regulator's attempts to have him medically assessed by an independent doctor.

[31] In my opinion, the respondent's depression and ADHD are not the cause of his outbursts of "unbridled anger". In an email to the Board's lawyers on 31 May 2025 (in the context of his unhappiness about the lawyer's reaction to his appeal to the Court of Appeal), he wrote:

Oh BS Ms KB,

You are just trying to tie me up with all your evil cute little tables.........your clients are not going to win. Understand, you stupid little girl! I am 73 years old, and you don't fool me one little bit you postering deceitful little lawyer! And your Judge, Deputy President JD Dann will have to go through the hoops! I hope the media and the public murder her, along with you and that entire snake pit you work in...when you are not on holiday.

[32] The respondent's conduct of his case at the hearing confirmed very strongly that he has no insight at all into his professional failings in 2020 and 2021. He expresses no genuine remorse. He has done nothing in the long period between notification and the hearing that would convince the Tribunal that he is presently a fit and proper person to practice as a health practitioner.

[33] I am satisfied that the conduct the subject of Grounds 1 and 4 in the Amended Referral is proved to the requisite standard. I agree with the Board that the letter of the 26 May and the respondent's own admissions about his motives for writing and delivering the letter justify findings that following the appointment on the 16 March 2020, the respondent attended PH's workplace with increased frequency, and communicated with her, his patient, in a flirtatious manner, and provided her with a letter at her workplace that was of a personal and professional inappropriate nature which conduct made her very uncomfortable.

[34] His conduct was not simply an example of outdated communication and style. There was then a patient/practitioner relationship. The relevant Code of Conduct[1], contains statements which are enumerated in the Board's submissions[2] breached by his behaviour. His proved conduct falls substantially below that of a practitioner of his experience and training in circumstance where he:

(a) Is approximately 40 years older that PH;

(b) Is an experienced medical radiation practitioner having qualified in 1972;

(c) Considered that PH's attendance at his practice for her X-ray with "heavy eye makeup" was for his own benefit;

(d) Subsequently attended her workplace more frequently that required to ascertain her receptiveness to entering into a personal relationship with him, and;

(e) Only desisted when it was made clear to him that PH was not interested in pursuing any relationship with him.

[35] As noted earlier, instead of accepting (to use his own words) that he was "making an absolute fool of himself", he doubled down, making a complaint against PH and engaging in the conduct the subject of Ground 4.

[36] In relation to Ground 1, this case has some similarities to Medical Board of Australia v Zimmerman [2023] QCAT 248. The conduct of the doctor in that case was more persistent, however the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the respondent in that case (unlike here) fully recognised the seriousness of his inappropriate conduct and was deeply remorseful. I agree with the Board that an examination of the cases discussed in its submission suggests that the boundary violation here is at the less serious end of the spectrum.

[37] The proved particulars in Ground 4 are as follows:

(a) At all times relevant to this ground Mr Willis held registration as a medical radiation practitioner.

(b) During the relevant period Mr Willis sent emails to the Ahpra Investigation team, which included the following statements:

(i) 'You have been described as Neanderthals by a friend of mine, and I can not help but agree with her'

(ii) 'You are a bunch of snivelling, Machiavellian minded little Bureacrats my girl, and you are going to be shown as such! Do you think I am angry?!! Well, this would be about the only accurate conclusion you have made to date!!'

(iii) 'Take note of Madonna's words "I have truth on my side, you have deceit." I just thought I would make the reason for sending you the song (sic) seeing you and the Board failed English Comprehension at school!'

(iv) 'My God! I am so glad I was raised in New Zealand instead of amongst you morons in Queensland!'

(v) 'Do you have anything at all to say for yourselves?!'

(vi) 'At least your obvious intension (sic) to destroy my registration absolves me from wasting any more 'of my time completing that stupid professional boundaries online course which you insisted on, and which I wasted money paying for.'

(vii) 'Whatever. You bureaucrats can continue to posture. Your (sic) not fooling anyone.'

(viii) 'Your responses, and lack of them, is being used to establish a prima facie against you.'

(c) During the relevant period Mr Willis sent emails to the Ahpra legal team, which included the following statements:

(i) 'I am not threatening you, I am making statements of fact, and you know it! Threatening me in return will not improve my opinion of you.'

(ii) '..you have concocted your evidence against me, and therefore have shown yourselves to be far from the impartial organisation that the public expects you to be. You are thus liable for action.'

(iii) '..your intent to destroy me is so obvious, that it requires exposure in the media, just as with Alexi Navalny, Julian Assange and countless others..'

(iv) 'It has also convinced me to turn away from my profession, so threatening me with Radiation Practice Boards etc is totally useless..I have found other pathways, where I am not subject to your autocracy. You are making sure quite unfairly and blatantly that I will not be able to practice in my profession again, and unofficial age discrimination also works against me. What I have stated in past emails is most definitely related to the matters at hand, and no amount of posturing by you will change that.'

(v) 'So, please get off your high horse, and email me back something more reasonable please.'

(d) Mr Willis's conduct as particularised above is a breach of standard 1.2, 8.1, 8.1O(a) of the Code of Conduct.

[38] The Code of Conduct imposes an obligation on practitioners to behave professionally and act with integrity including in their communications with others which includes the staff of relevant regulators.

[39] The respondent admits that he made all these communications. As has been said many times in the cases, the use of insulting and demeaning language towards Ahpra officers carrying out their duties to investigate, is not conducive to the maintenance of the good name of the profession in the public eye. The proved communications here are an affront to the respondent's profession. As note earlier by reference to Exhibit 2, it is clear that the respondent has no insight into the inappropriateness of his earlier conduct, supporting the proposition that he presents as a continuing risk of undermining public confidence in the maintenance of professional standards in his profession.[3]

[40] I am satisfied that the proved conduct constitutes professional misconduct considered either separately or together.

[41] The principles relating to sanction are well known and need not be repeated.[4] Proceedings of this nature are protective and not punitive.

[42] It is relevant that the respondent practiced for many years without disciplinary intervention. There is reference to some old matters in the material however the Board does not submit that these are relevant. He has been suspended now for many years. He has not used that time to rehabilitate or do anything to indicate remorse or insight. He continues to justify his behaviour towards PH. The recent email to the Board's lawyers strongly suggests that in relation to the conduct proved in relation to Ground 4 he is still a substantial risk of behaving unprofessionally in relation to anyone he perceives as acting contrary to his own interests.

[43] Specific deterrence is a very relevant consideration in this case. General deterrence is also relevant particularly in relation to Ground 4. Registered health practitioners must know that if they behave in a demeaning threatening and insulting way towards staff of regulators, a significant sanction will follow.

[44] His conduct throughout the disciplinary process, continuing with his pugnacious presentation at the hearing, suggests that rather than his mental health being the cause of his unprofessional conduct, it is a defect in character that renders him unfit to practice as a registered health practitioner at the present time. I will allow some mitigation because of the delay by not disqualifying him from applying for registration for a short period.

(a) Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

(b) Pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded;

(c) Pursuant to section 196(2)(e) of the National Law, the respondent's registration is cancelled.

(d) There be no order as to costs.

[3] Midwifery Board of Australia v Willox [2019] VCAT 1180.

[4] See Medical Board of Australia v Dolar [2012] QCAT 271 at [30].