GKK

Case [2011] QCAT 344


CITATION: GKK [2011] QCAT 344
PARTIES: GKK
APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAA2153-11
MATTER TYPE: Guardianship and administration matters for adults
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: C Endicott, senior member
DELIVERED ON: 21 March 2011
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:    

Application for the interim appointment of a guardian is refused
CATCHWORDS : 

GUARDIANSHIP – request for interim appointment – where alleged non compliance with medical treatment – appointment of Adult Guardian sought – where tribunal not satisfied immediate risk of harm

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 – section 129

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard and determined on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. An application for the appointment of a guardian for GKK was lodged with the tribunal by ML, a case manager with the Continuing Care team of Queensland Health.  

  2. According to the application, GKK attends a Mental Health Clinic on a monthly basis to be reviewed by her psychiatrist.  The applicant sought the appointment of a guardian to make health care decisions for GKK. 

  3. In her application, ML submitted that GKK was refusing necessary services, that she was making, or was likely to make, decisions that are not in the best interests of her health and that may be detrimental to the diagnostic investigations that she requires to examine the full extent of her physical presentation.

  4. In a health professional’s report filed in support of the application, Dr Roy stated that GKK has been diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  Dr Roy reported that in 2009 GKK unreasonably refused intravenous medication at the Princess Alexandra Hospital.  Dr Roy stated that GKK has poor insight into her physical and mental health conditions.

  5. Dr Roy reported that GKK appears not to understand that her lack of decision making with regard to her physical health may result in poor diagnostics and treatment. Dr Roy expressed the opinion that GKK could make simple decisions about health care but not complex decisions due to her psychiatric condition.

  6. ML applied for an interim appointment of a guardian. Section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 gives the tribunal power to make an interim appointment of a guardian if the tribunal is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, there is an immediate risk of harm to the health or welfare of an adult.  

  7. ML submitted that GKK is 67 years of age.  GKK was reviewed by her psychiatrist on 4 March 2011 when it was felt that GKK’s mental health had deteriorated and her physical health was also a concern.  ML submitted that GKK was unco-operative with her case manager and refused to attend a clinic at her hostel with her treating general medical practitioner on 10 March 2011.  On 11 March 2011 GKK attended for a chest x-ray and had one film taken but refused to co-operate further.

  8. ML stated that GKK reportedly experienced reduced sleep, had lost weight over two to three months, was irritable and was voicing increasing verbal aggression.  The health professional’s report did not report the presence of a disorder requiring immediate treatment. 

  9. ML did not provide evidence that GKK was at an immediate risk of harm.  The evidence, relevant to the interim appointment request, provided to the tribunal was limited.  It was stated that GKK had refused to co-operate with her case manager and had refused to have more than one film taken of a chest x-ray.  It was not explained how the actions of GKK were alleged to have placed her at an immediate risk of harm.  There was no satisfactory evidence of any immediate serious health condition that required treatment without delay. 

[10] Appointments of decision makers without a hearing and without notice to an adult should be made only when circumstances compel such action. Section 129 restricts the making of interim orders to those cases where an adult is at an immediate risk of harm. That restriction attempts to find the balance between the right of an adult with impaired capacity to have the greatest possible degree of autonomy in decision making and the adult’s right to adequate and appropriate support for decision making.

[11]  The evidence provided to the tribunal in support of the application for an interim appointment of a guardian did not establish a basis to impose a decision making regime on GKK without giving her an opportunity to be heard.   In the absence of appreciable risks of immediate harm, the tribunal must not appoint a decision maker without according procedural fairness to an adult.             

Details
AGLC
GKK [2011] QCAT 344
Case
[2011] QCAT 344
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of GKK, the applicant sought an interim appointment of a guardian in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant alleged that the respondent was not complying with medical treatment, which necessitated the intervention of an adult guardian. The application was made under section 129 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000. The central legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal was correct in not being satisfied that there was an immediate risk of harm to the respondent.

The court considered the statutory criteria required to justify an interim appointment of a guardian, specifically whether there was an immediate risk of harm to the respondent. It examined the evidence presented, which included the medical advice and the respondent's capacity to make informed decisions about their treatment. The court noted that the tribunal had assessed the risk and concluded there was no immediate risk of harm, and thus no immediate need for an interim guardian. The applicant argued that the tribunal's assessment was flawed, but the court found that the tribunal's decision was within its discretion and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court upheld the tribunal's decision, finding no basis to interfere with the tribunal's assessment that an immediate risk of harm did not exist.

The court dismissed the application for the interim appointment of a guardian. The refusal of the application was based on the tribunal's determination that there was no immediate risk of harm to the respondent, which aligned with the statutory criteria for such appointments. The orders made by the court were to refuse the application for the interim appointment of a guardian, as the tribunal's decision was deemed appropriate and in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for the interim appointment of a guardian is refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.