A former Queensland paramedic, who has not been registered since 1 January 2024 and how has not practised since August 2020, has been barred from working in health care and from seeking registration for two years from 21 May 2025 (Paramedicine Board of Australia v Fournier [2025] QCAT 155).

The behaviour, the conduct of the ultimate referral to the Tribunal occurred in August 2019.  It was alleged that on 4 August 2019 the respondent, Fournier, along with a colleague, responded to a 47 year old male. They failed to properly assess the patient or complete the necessary paperwork in particular ‘the Voluntary Informed Relevant Capacity Advice (‘VIRCA’) documentation’.   The next day the same paramedics were called back to the same patient who was then in cardiac arrest. They delayed their departure from the station by 18 minutes, did not attempt to use a defibrillator and completed the VIRCA paperwork regarding the previous day’s call whilst waiting for Queensland Police to arrive as the patient was deceased ([9]-[14]).

The second incident related to another patient on 7 August 2019.  The same paramedics were called to a woman unconscious and not breathing. The respondent acknowledged the call but said they had to stop at the station to collect some equipment.  The vehicle was at the station for 6 minutes and 50 seconds before proceeding to the assigned job.  There was no CPR performed by the paramedics.  It was alleged that the respondent falsified their arrival time on scene, but this could be disproved by vehicle and radio tracking data.

Both cases involved the same two paramedics, but this judgment relates only to Fournier.  It is not known what if any action was taken, or is being taken, against his colleague.

There were multiple allegations as set out at [24]-[34] (emphasis added):

Allegation 1 is that the respondent provided inadequate and/or inappropriate treatment to Patient A during the first visit by failing to undertake adequate testing and/or recognise suboptimal vital signs in Patient A; and further, by failing to provide the patient and his mother adequate information about whether to go to hospital.

Allegation 2 is that the respondent provided false and/or misleading information to the Queensland Ambulance Service Operations Centre by advising that Patient A was stable and his numbers were good.

Allegation 3 is that, during the second visit to Patient A, the respondent provided inadequate or inappropriate treatment, including by failing to undertake effective resuscitation methods.

Allegation 4 relates to Patient B, in that the respondent provided inadequate or inappropriate treatment to her by failing to make reasonable enquires about her history and failing to immediately commence CPR.  …

Allegation 5 is that the respondent kept inadequate health records by failing to complete electronic ambulance report form (‘eARF’) for Patient A in a timely manner following the first visit.

Allegation 6 is that the respondent created an inaccurate or misleading eARF regarding his initial attendance on Patient A by describing his circulation as adequate, cardiovascular signs as normal and vitals as within normal limits.

Allegation 7 is that the respondent created or allowed his partner to create a false or misleading amendment to the form for Patient B by stating the time they arrived on scene was 12:49pm…

Allegation 8 is that the respondent inappropriately delayed the care of the first patient on the second visit by not leaving the Canungra station for about 18 minutes.

Allegation 9 is that the respondent inappropriately delayed the care of Patient B by stopping at the Canungra station for nearly seven minutes after receiving the dispatch.

Allegation 10 is that he failed to undertake professional obligations by failing to carry out the mandatory daily vehicle inspection check at the start of his shift on 7 August 2019.

The respondent denied allegations 4, 7 and 8, the timing of the response was however confirmed by ‘computerised information obtained from the automatic vehicle location data and the radio location data.  On the basis of that data, the Tribunal is comfortably of the opinion that the denied allegations are made out’ ([38]).

Other matters were generally admitted (even if not all the specifics were admitted). The tribunal was satisfied that the respondent’s conduct was professional misconduct ([40]).  The Paramedicine Board’s position ([43]) was:

…  but for the references, unsworn statement and the five and a half years that have elapsed since the alleged conduct occurred, a disqualification period of a longer time … would have been appropriate.  However, the Board seeks that the respondent be disqualified for a period of two years, given the very significant amount of time that has passed, the fact that the respondent has no intention of returning to practice as a registered health practitioner again and that he has exhibited some degree of remorse and insight.  …

The respondent (at [44]) ‘accepts that there needs to be a reprimand … and that a two-year period prohibiting his provision of any health services is appropriate’.  But of course why wouldn’t he accept that?  He hasn’t worked as a paramedic since August 2020 and is no longer registered. There would be little value in incurring the expense of legal representation and delaying the proceedings to challenge that outcome given that he is no longer in the profession.

We are told (at [22]) that on 14 August 2020, the respondent gave an undertaking:

… not to practise in any role requiring direct or indirect clinical patient contact, effective from 14 August 2020. He did apply to revoke this undertaking, but the Board refused that application and, on 8 September 2023, the Board referred the matter to the Tribunal.

I infer that he agreed not to practice, and the Board took no steps to refer the matter to the Tribunal, or otherwise conclude disciplinary proceedings, until he applied to be relieved of that undertaking.  There is no other explanation why it took 4 years to refer the matter to the Tribunal and what investigation or fact finding had to be done in that time.  Again, it looks like the Board, having securing Mr Fournier’s exit from the profession were happy to take no further action.   Again a disciplinary outcome without the inconvenience of actually having to prove the allegation (see ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ – QAS paramedic reprimanded nearly 6 years after event (May 21, 2025)).  One cannot know but perhaps if the allegation been tested earlier, when Mr Fournier may have wanted to remain a paramedic, he would have been more active in his defence?

With respect to allegation 10 and the failure to complete mandatory checks.  I refer here to the post Paramedic called out during time for equipment checks (September 2, 2023) and note there is no explanation why the checks were not done.  Was the paramedic simply careless or was he called out on a job before they could be completed?  There is no discussion on this point.  We are told, only (at [16]) ‘At the commencement of the shift, the respondent did not carry out a mandatory vehicle inspection to ensure the ambulance was fully equipped with stock.’ Again, Mr Fournier did not deny that allegation but also gave no explanation for his conduct, but again one has to ask ‘why would he bother?’ given he was no longer registered or seeking registration and fighting a particular allegation was not going to make a difference to the outcome but would incur extra costs. 

Further there is no explanation as to whether the failure to perform the checks was the problem. At [17] the evidence was that the respondent said to the controller ‘We’re going to have a slight delay.  We’re just coming up to the station now, we need to stop and throw some gear in after the last couple of jobs we’ve done and we’ll continue to respond.’  There was no discussion about whether it was a failure to do checks at the start of the job that was the problem, or that resources had been consumed during other jobs. Again, that may have been tested had the complaint been put before the Tribunal in a timely manner and before the respondent had been out of practice for nearly 5 years.

Conclusion

This is a very unsatisfactory judgment where the Tribunal did not have to resolve any factual issues as the matter was largely uncontested.  The respondent admitted ‘most of the conduct alleged against him’ so there was no contest on the facts, on whether those facts constituted professional misconduct or what the appropriate outcome was.  Given Mr Fournier had not practised since 2020 and ‘has no intention of returning to practice as a registered health practitioner again’ ([43]) there would have been little value in him defending the case.  For him, the outcome was largely moot.

It does, in my mind, beg the question of ‘what is the role of the Tribunal?’  In theory it is the Tribunal that is to determine whether conduct constitutes professional misconduct and to determine the appropriate penalty.  What we see however is the Board’s taking action to stop people’s practice – either as ‘immediate action’ or as here by accepting an undertaking not to practice – and then putting matters before the Tribunal only when they are sure the respondent is not going to challenge the allegations.   Where practitioners have decided to throw in the towel there is nothing for the Tribunal to rule on and they appear to be simply rubber stamp the Board’s recommendations for an outcome. 

Where a defendant is vigorously defending the allegations (see Doctor remains suspended over CPR performance (September 7, 2024)) the matter is over 10 years old and there is still no indication that the practitioner has been referred to the Tribunal to get a definitive answer as to whether his conduct was or was not below the standard to be expected of equivalent practitioners.  The fear is that Boards are acting as both prosecutor, judge and jury rather than delegating those final tasks to the relevant Tribunal.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.