Health Ombudsman v Raniga - [2022] QCAT 438

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Raniga [2022] QCAT 438

PARTIES:

Health ombudsman

(applicant)

v

prashant dhiraj lal raniga

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR111-20

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2022

HEARING DATE:

13 December 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D Reid
Assisted by:
Dr P Bowden
Dr P Marshall
Ms D Layt

ORDERS:

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

2. Pursuant to 107(3)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013, the respondent is reprimanded; and

3. Pursuant to 107(3)(c) of the Health Ombudsman Act, the respondent is to pay a fine of $25,000 to the Health Ombudsman.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – DENTISTS – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – where a complaint was made to the applicant about the respondent’s failure to maintain proper infection control practices – where the respondent was suspended from practice – where the suspension was eventually lifted and conditions placed on his registration – where the conduct is admitted – where the sanction is agreed – whether the agreed sanction is appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2013

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld)

Health Ombudsman v Gupta [2022] QCAT 160

Healthcare Complaints Commission v Chan [2017] NSWCATOD 66
Healthcare Complaints Commission v Starkenburg [2017] NSWCATOD 22
Healthcare Complaints Commission v Somaey [2021] NSWCATOD 91

Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376

The matter was heard and determined on the papers.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The respondent was born on the 7^th of September 1975. He completed a Bachelor of Dental Science at the University of Queensland in 1998. In December of that year, he was registered as a dental practitioner and established his own practice in 2003. He has no relevant past disciplinary history and no history of complaints against him.
On the 16^th of February 2017, a former employee of the practice complained to the Office of Health Ombudsman (OHO) about the respondent’s infection control practices. As a result, the Health Ombudsman, on the 23^rd of March, suspended the respondent’s registration under section 59(4) of the Health Ombudsman Act.[1] The respondent was invited to make submissions about that decision.
[1]2013 (Qld).
There then followed correspondence between the Health Ombudsman and the respondent. Ultimately, on the 7^th of September 2017, after five and a half months, his suspension was revoked and conditions on his registration were imposed. On the 6^th of November 2017, the compliance team of the Office of Health Ombudsman advised the respondent he had fulfilled the audit conditions and could resume practice, although he was precluded from treating patients in nursing homes, as he had done up to March 2017. This condition was finally revoked in December 2018.
After the suspension in March 2017, the Health Ombudsman conducted a search of the respondent’s practice pursuant to a warrant. Two specialist dentists, Dr Kelsey…

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 Raniga 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 438
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Health Ombudsman v Raniga, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to determine whether the respondent, Prashant Dhiraj Lal Raniga, had engaged in professional misconduct as defined in the Health Ombudsman Act 2013. The dispute arose from a complaint about the respondent's failure to maintain proper infection control practices in his dental practice. Following the complaint, the Health Ombudsman suspended the respondent's registration, which was later lifted with conditions. The respondent admitted to the allegations of professional misconduct and the parties agreed on the sanction, which was the subject of the tribunal's decision.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether the respondent's conduct constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what the appropriate sanction should be. The tribunal considered the definition of professional misconduct, the respondent's insight and remorse, steps taken to mitigate the risk of recurrence, and other relevant factors. The tribunal also considered analogous cases from New South Wales, which provided guidance on the appropriate sanction in similar circumstances.

The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did constitute professional misconduct as it was of serious concern. However, the respondent had shown significant improvement in clinical practice, complied with all audit requirements, and taken steps to mitigate the risk of recurrence. The tribunal accepted the joint submission of the parties in respect of penalty, which was a reprimand and a fine of $25,000. The tribunal noted that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is protective rather than punitive and that it ought not to depart from a proposed sanction agreed between the parties unless it falls outside the permissible range of sanction for the conduct.

The tribunal made orders that the respondent had behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct, was reprimanded, and was to pay a fine of $25,000 to the Health Ombudsman. The tribunal considered that the agreed sanction was appropriate in the circumstances and did not depart from it. The respondent's registration was subject to the conditions previously imposed, which were eventually revoked.

Orders