Health Ombudsman v Haack

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Haack [2020] QCAT 285

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

MANDY LOUISE HAACK

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR264-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2020 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

Assisted by:

Ms Harriet Barker
Ms Mary Barnett

Mr Bradley Thomas

ORDERS:

1.   The respondent has engaged in professional misconduct;

2.   The respondent is reprimanded;

3.   Each party bear their own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where respondent stole drugs from patient in course of her employment – where a conviction was not recorded – professional misconduct – where the respondent did not notify the Board within 7 days of the relevant event – where the respondent fully cooperated with the Board – whether sanction appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2013

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)

Health Ombudsman v Jamieson [2017] QCAT 172

R v Yarwood [2011] QCA 367

REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Director of Proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Hall Payne Lawyers
APPEARANCES:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant director referred these disciplinary proceedings to the Tribunal on 31 July 2019, pursuant to ss 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the Act). The parties have filed an agreed statement of facts, and although each has filed submissions, both agree as to the appropriate characterisation of the respondent’s admitted conduct and the sanction to be imposed.

2. As a matter of principle, this Tribunal will only depart from the agreed position of the parties where the sanction proposed falls outside the range of appropriate disciplinary responses to the proved conduct.  This reflects the important public policy principle, particularly relevant in proceedings of this nature, which are protective and not punitive, that to depart from an agreed position of the parties to resolve the proceedings, particularly here where the respondent is legally represented by solicitors who regularly practice in this jurisdiction, is to inappropriately discourage proper negotiations between parties, leading to an agreed position, and to conversely encourage unnecessarily prolonged and expensive litigation, which is not in the public interest.

The agreed facts 

1. At all relevant times, the respondent was a registered nurse. She obtained a Bachelor of Nursing in 2002. She was 54 years of age at the time of the agreed conduct, the subject of these proceedings, and is now 56 years of age. She was a health practitioner, and a health service provider, pursuant to the relevant definitions in s 5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) (National Law).

2. The respondent was contracted through a nursing agency on a casual basis.  On 22 November 2018, she was contracted to work a shift as a registered nurse at the Princess Alexandra Hospital…