Health Ombudsman v Murphy - [2022] QCAT 7

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Murphy [2022] QCAT 7

PARTIES:

DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(Applicant)

v

RAYMOND LEO MURPHY

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR169-19

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2022

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2021
23 November 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Robertson
Assisted by:
Ms M Gunn
Ms S Hopkins
Mr P Murdoch

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to section 107 (2) (b) (iii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal decides that the Respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;

2. Pursuant to section 107 (3) (a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal orders that the Respondent be reprimanded;

3. Liberty to apply within seven (7) days, with any response within seven (7) days of receipt of the application, and any application to be heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where the respondent was a registered nurse working in mental health – where the respondent had an altercation with a patient involving physical violence – whether the respondent use excessive force by punching or striking the patient in the circumstances – whether the respondent assaulted the patient – whether such conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct – what sanction should be imposed

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (Queensland), s 5

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), s 107

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria v Swieca [2009] VCAT 419
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 CLR 449

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Smith [2020] VCAT 173

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

C Templeton, instructed by the Office of the Health Ombudsman

Respondent:

P Van Grinsven, instructed by Thynne Macartney

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 14 May 2018, Raymond Murphy was employed as an agency nurse and was working a shift at the high dependency unit (HDU) known as 2L which is a secure unit within the general mental health unit known as 2C at the Logan Hospital. He had worked in the same unit the day before between 2:30 pm and 11 pm and had commenced duties on the 14^th at 7am. He was fatigued, having had only 5 hours sleep between shifts.
He was born on 14 July 1957, so is currently 64 years of age. He was aged 60 as at 14 May 2018.
He was then a highly qualified nurse who had worked his whole 24 year career up to 2018 in mental health.
Mr Murphy completed a certificate of psychiatric nursing at Baillie Henderson Health Service School of Nursing, Toowoomba in 1994. This is equivalent to a current Bachelor’s Degree in mental health nursing. He obtained registration as a registered nurse on…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Health Ombudsman v Murphy and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QCAT 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Health Ombudsman v Murphy was a disciplinary proceeding heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The Health Ombudsman, acting on behalf of the public, alleged that Raymond Murphy, a registered nurse working in mental health, used excessive force in restraining a patient. The Tribunal found that Mr Murphy had indeed used excessive force, punching the patient multiple times, and concluded that this conduct constituted professional misconduct. The Tribunal ordered that Mr Murphy be reprimanded and gave both parties liberty to apply for costs within seven days, to be determined on the papers. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining professional boundaries and the use of appropriate force in healthcare settings, particularly in high-risk environments such as mental health units.

Orders