Health Ombudsman v Kajewski

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Kajewski [2020] QCAT 396

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

EVAN LESLIE KAJEWSKI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR128-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2020 (Ex Tempore)

HEARING DATE:

14 October 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Robertson

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 113(1) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that, because of his conduct, the respondent poses a serious risk to persons.

2. Pursuant to s 73(2)(a)(ii) of Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) the Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Health Ombudsman to issue the interim prohibition order on 27 October 2017.

3. Pursuant to s 113(4)(a) of Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is permanently prohibited from providing any health service.

4.   Each party bear their own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent was an unregistered health care professional – where the respondent was a trainee anaesthetic technician – where the applicant instituted disciplinary proceedings against the respondent – where the respondent was convicted of offences of dishonesty – where the respondent did not engage with the proceedings – whether the Tribunal should make an order permanently prohibiting the respondent from providing any health service

Health Ombudsman Act 2013, s 103, s 104, s 113

Health Ombudsman v Kirk [2019] QCAT 301

Health Ombudsman v MacBean [2019] QCAT 300

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	C Templeton instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant Director referred these proceedings to the Tribunal by way of application filed on 30 April 2019 pursuant to ss 103(1)(a) and 104 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (the Act).

2. The respondent was an anaesthetist technician at all material times. The referral contains five grounds, the first three of which relate to the misappropriation by the respondent of schedule 8 drugs intended to be administered to patients who were either being prepared for or in the process of undergoing significant surgery. Ground 4 relates to the respondent’s conviction by his own plea of guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 17 April 2018 to three criminal offences relating to his unlawful actions in relation to the schedule 8 drugs, and ground 5 alleges, because of the conduct pleaded in the previous four grounds, that the respondent has demonstrated a serious lack of judgement and ethical behaviour as a health practitioner.

3. The applicant seeks a prohibition order pursuant to the now-repealed s 113(1) of the Act. That section was repealed upon the commencement of the Health Transparency Act 2019, division 4, part 10. However, as a result of transitional proceedings in the Act,[1] the Tribunal can deal with the matter as if s 113(1) remained in force, given that the referral application was filed prior to the commencement of the Amending Act.

   [1] Section 320G

Background

1. The parties have signed a statement of…