Skip links and navigation

News & updates

QCAT decisions

The Health Ombudsman, through the Director of Proceedings, may take disciplinary matters against registered health practitioners to QCAT for determination. In addition, QCAT has jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to unregistered health practitioners where they pose a serious risk to the public.


Health Ombudsman v NLM [2018] QCAT 164

On 30 May 2018, the matter of Health Ombudsman v NLM was heard by Deputy President Sheridan in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found the practitioner’s behaviour amounted to professional misconduct, reprimanded the practitioner, and imposed a fine of $5000.

Read the decision


The Health Ombudsman v Dalziel [2017] QCAT 442

On 17 October and 17 November 2017, the matter of the Health Ombudsman v Dalziel was heard by Deputy President Sheridan in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found that the pharmacist Mr John Dalziel behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct. The practitioner was suspended for a period of one month, with conditions imposed on his registration.

Read the decision


Health Ombudsman v Barber [2017] QCAT 431

On 19 April 2017, the matter of the Health Ombudsman v Barber was heard by Deputy President Sheridan in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal reprimanded the practitioner.

Read the decision


Health Ombudsman v Chambers [2017] QCAT 362

On 23 October 2017, the matter of the Health Ombudsman v Chambers was heard on the papers by Acting Deputy President O’Callaghan in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found the practitioner’s behaviour amounted to professional misconduct and reprimanded her.

Read the decision


Lapthorn v The Health Ombudsman (No 2) [2017] QCAT 353

In August 2017, the matter of the Lapthorn v Health Ombudsman was heard by Acting Deputy President O’Callaghan in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal was not satisfied that the practitioner poses a serious risk and that an interim prohibition order is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. The Tribunal set aside the Health Ombudsman’s decision to issue an interim prohibition order.

Read the decision