Health Ombudsman Applicant v Greer

[2025] QCAT 6

[2025] QCAT 6

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REID, Judicial Member

Assisted by:

DR BODNAR

DR MANOHARAN

MR DAVIDS

OCR 120 of 2022

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Applicant

v 

GREER, Marshall Neil 

Respondent

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 13 JANUARY 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is a most unusual case. The Respondent is a 64-year-old doctor being born on 14 January 1960. He was registered as a doctor on 4 January 1993 and was so registered until September 2022. At that time, he did not renew his registration, but applied for and was granted a non-practising registration by the Medical Board of Australia (‘Board’).

2. He has, so far as I understand it, no relevant past disciplinary history. This proceeding arises out of his consultation with a 12-year-old girl at which her mother was present on 15 November 2014.

3. The consultation related to concerns about the girl’s red eye reflex. During it, and without any prompting or questioning from the girl or her mother, the respondent had a conversation about Schoolies and the use by teenagers of anti-acne drugs as contraception and abstinence.

4. Such conversation was, on its face, grossly inappropriate and it was found to be so in disciplinary proceedings by both the Board and on appeal by Judge Sheridan on 21 December 2016. There is further information in relation to the circumstances of that in her Honour’s judgment in Greer v Medical Board of Australia [2016] QCAT 474.

5. That decision affirmed a ruling that the Board had made on 19 May 2015 cautioning the Respondent and imposing conditions on his registration, requiring him to complete an education program about appropriate communication, especially with young female patients.

6. He has since simply refused to undertake such a program and did so for a number of years and including up until he failed to renew his registration, or at least elected not to renew it in September 2019. The matter before me concerns his refusal to engage in such a program.

7. The parties are agreed that the appropriate orders in this case are:

   (a)that the allegation in the amended referral is found to established;

   (b)that, pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the Respondent has engaged in professional misconduct as defined under section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland);

   (c)pursuant to section 107(3)(a) of the HO Act, the Respondent is reprimanded;

   (d)pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the HO Act, the Respondent’s registration is cancelled;

   (e)that pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the Respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of five years.

8. Having discussed this with my fellow panel members and considered the written submissions, I have no doubt that such orders are appropriate. In the circumstances, I will make such orders.

Orders

1.   The allegation in the amended referral is found to established;

2. Pursuant to section 107(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) (‘HO Act’), the Respondent has engaged in professional misconduct as defined under section 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland);

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

4. Pursuant to section 107(3)(e) of the HO Act, the Respondent’s registration is cancelled;

5. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the HO Act, the Respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of five years.