The ACT government has denied allegations it retaliated against the whistleblowing efforts of a hospital clinical director assessed to have made "an error of judgement".
It says the reasons for its actions included concern for the director's wellbeing and her allegedly breaching duty of care.
Earlier this year, Dr Brownyn Avard launched Federal Court proceedings. She alleges her employer took adverse actions against her between November 2021 and July 2022 after she made formal complaints related to work health and safety issues.
At the time, Dr Avard was ICU clinical director at the Canberra Hospital.
Her court claim states that last November she submitted four reports related to mental stress from exposure to traumatic events or work-related harassment and/or bullying.
She was shortly thereafter directed to undergo an independent medical examination, and told not to attend the workplace until the medical report had been provided and considered.
A psychiatric examination found Dr Avard medically fit to perform her role.
In January of this year, concerns about her employment and about one of her reports were raised, triggering a clinical misconduct investigation and her suspension.
She was then placed on long service leave on the condition that she not enter the workplace while on leave.
Six months later and after having a bid to return rejected, she was told the investigation would be closed because of insufficient evidence.
The Canberra Health Services also decided to formally investigate a complaint about her behaviour towards a direct report dating back to at least March 2018 until October 2019.
Dr Avard was notified about the preliminary assessment in relation to that investigation about nine months before she submitted her safety reports.
She and her lawyers argue that the report, prepared by HBA Consulting, into that investigation was deficient based on a number of factors, including making prejudicial statements without supporting evidence and offering no explanation about a delay.
On July 13, the health services informed her it had decided misconduct did not occur after initially adopting the consulting firm's alleged misconduct findings.
One month prior, Dr Avard was notified of another investigation about allegations of misconduct against her, including that the safety reports she made were improper and inaccurate.
She was then transferred into a medical position at Calvary Public Hospital pending the outcome of that investigation.
In late July, the health services sent an email to ICU members to say all possible steps were being taken for Dr Avard not to return pending the investigation's outcome.
The email also said staff did not have to accept meetings with her.
In their recently filed defence, the government and three hospital executives denied all allegations of adverse actions.
They said the directions to attend the medical examination and not to attend work, with paid leave, were issued because Dr Avard had put the health services on notice, via her safety reports, that her wellbeing had been adversely affected in the previous several weeks.
Dr Avard's employer said it was concerned about her work capacity because her reports included her experiencing various trauma, persistent flashbacks and nightmares, intrusive thoughts, and poor sleep as a result of workplace incidents.
The respondents' defence statement also cited the medical report by Dr Prabal Kar who deemed Dr Avard fit to work.
"It appears that Dr Avard was unhappy about certain work-related matters ... including her perception of a lack of support from management," Dr Kar said.
He said the plaintiff used "emotive language" in her safety reports and that it was "an error of judgement on her part".
"She said she can see why the employer had taken the action to have her assessed for duty," he said.
In relation to the clinical misconduct investigation, the respondents said the concern relating to one of Dr Avard's safety reports was that she allegedly "breached her duty of care to a patient and CHS by failing to provide safe patient experience" on October 31 in 2021.
The respondents deny being liable to compensate Dr Avard and to a penalty.
In addition to adverse actions, Dr Avard alleges the government's actions breach the Fair Work Act 2009 and amount to attempting to silence a whistleblower.
In addition to the government, Dr Avard's claim also names hospital executives Lisa Gilmore, Cathie O'Neill, and Janet Zagari as respondents.
The matters filed against them relate to their roles as decision makers in allegedly facilitating the health services' alleged breaches of the Act.
Dr Avard, who was appointed ICU director in 2015, is seeking, among other things, a declaration that the respondents breached the Act and for the investigation that began in June to stop.
She also seeks payment for the damages incurred since the actions against her started.
Dr Avard previously said she had raised safety concerns with hospital executives over many years.
"I have devoted the past 17 years to the wellbeing of patients and staff in Canberra Hospital and I remain fully committed to public health care in the ACT," she said.
An earlier version of this article reported that Dr Bronwyn Avard was demoted in relation to her medical position. This is incorrect. The article has been updated.
