Health Care Complaints Commission v Greive [2016] NSWCATOD 28

Health Care Complaints Commission v Greive [2016] NSWCATOD 28

The respondent engaged in serious and repeated boundary violations with a vulnerable mental health patient shortly after the professional relationship ended, including forming an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship, failing to maintain professional boundaries, and failing to seek guidance. The conduct amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct and, in its cumulative effect, professional misconduct justifying cancellation/disqualification, a prohibition order, and an order for costs. Protective orders were required due to the substantial risk posed to the public and lack of insight shown by the respondent.

Parties
Complainant: Health Care Complaints Commission; Respondent: Mike Siebe Greive
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings / Final Decision and Orders
Outcome
Complaints proved—orders made for cancellation (if registered), disqualification, prohibition order, suppression order, and costs.
Legal Topics
Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, Professional Misconduct, Professional Boundaries, Mental Health Care, Prohibition Orders, Suppression Orders, Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings
Health Law Administrative Law Professional Discipline Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct Professional Misconduct Professional Boundaries Mental Health Care Prohibition Orders +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Care Complaints Commission

Complainant

Mike Siebe Greive

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Occupational Disciplinary Proceedings / Final Decision and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under s.139B of the National Law
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct under s.139E of the National Law
  3. 3 Whether the conduct justified cancellation of registration, disqualification, and imposition of a prohibition order

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent engaged in serious and repeated boundary violations with a vulnerable mental health patient shortly after the professional relationship ended, including forming an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship, failing to maintain professional boundaries, and failing to seek guidance. The conduct amounts to unsatisfactory professional conduct and, in its cumulative effect, professional misconduct justifying cancellation/disqualification, a prohibition order, and an order for costs. Protective orders were required due to the substantial risk posed to the public and lack of insight shown by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Complaints proved—orders made for cancellation (if registered), disqualification, prohibition order, suppression order, and costs.

Orders

  • The Tribunal would have cancelled the Respondent's registration if he was still registered.
  • The Respondent is disqualified from being registered as a Nurse for a period of 18 months.