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 Wood [2019] QCAT 35

The matter of Health Ombudsman v Wood was heard by Deputy President Judge Allen in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found the practitioner had behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, was reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration for a period of twelve months.

Read the decision


Health Ombudsman v Mak [2019] QCAT 24

The matter of Health Ombudsman v Mak was heard by Deputy President Judge Allen in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found the practitioner had behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, was reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration for a period of three years.

Read the decision


Health Ombudsman v Kiley [2019] QCAT 19

The matter of Health Ombudsman v Kiley was heard by  Judge Sheridan in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found the practitioner had behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct and was reprimanded.

Read the decision


Health Ombudsman v Shemer [2019] QCAT 53

The matter of Health Ombudsman v Shemer was heard by Deputy President Judge Allen QC in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found the practitioner had behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct, was reprimanded and had imposed conditions on his registration.

Read the decision


Health Ombudsman v Euston [2018] QCAT 421

In August and November 2018, the matter of Health Ombudsman v Euston was heard by Deputy President Judge Sheridan in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Tribunal found the practitioner made statements which he knew or ought to have known were false, namely his denial that he had ever supplied dangerous drugs or that he had ever been in possession of dangerous drugs.

Read the decision