Health Ombudsman v MCG

[2023] QCAT 546

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v MCG [2023] QCAT 546

PARTIES:

HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

MCG

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR166-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

1 August 2023 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Reid
Assisted by:
Mr N Lentakis ASM
Ms K Nielsen
Mr J Walsh

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 107(2)(b)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013(Qld), the Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.

2. Pursuant to s 107(3) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013(Qld), the Tribunal cautions the respondent.

3. Pursuant to s 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013(Qld), the Health Ombudsman’s immediate registration action of 17 September 2021 is set aside.

4.     Each party bears its own costs of the proceedings.

5.     The reasons be anonymised and publication of anything which identifies the respondent or the patient be prohibited.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES — HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS — OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS — where the respondent is a Queensland Ambulance Services Officer — where the respondent was provoked by a patient — where the respondent subsequently struck the patient — where the respondent was not the patient’s treating practitioner — whether the circumstances are properly characterised as exceptional — where the parties’ joint submissions are accepted — orders made by consent

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld)

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	J R Jones instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman
Respondent:	R Reid instructed by United Workers Union

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Health Ombudsman has brought an application in respect of conduct by a Queensland Ambulance Services Officer arising from an incident on 1 July 2021 at Townsville University Hospital.  The incident arose as a result of very significant provocation by the patient, who was subsequently struck by the respondent.  It is appropriate to say that there are very unusual features of this case. 

2. It is, in my view, unnecessary to set out the detail of that incident or of the significant steps that the respondent has made to deal with the matter subsequently.  In short, I can say that I accept, without question, the joint submissions of the parties in this matter.  It is, in my view, appropriate to make the consent order they propose be made.

3. Nothing that I have said in this matter indicates that, in general, an ambulance officer behaving in a way that involved him striking a patient who was clearly suffering significant mental health distress, is appropriate or to be condoned.  However, the circumstance of this case, including MCG’s response subsequent to the acts in question, mean that it is properly characterised as exceptional.