Health Ombudsman v Roza - [2022] QCAT 420

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Roza [2022] QCAT 420

PARTIES:

director of proceedings on behalf of the Health Ombudsman

(applicant)

v

louis roza

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR285-21

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 October 2022 (ex tempore)

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member J Dick SC

Assisted by:

Mr Michael Halliday
Ms Catherine Hassall

Mr Lachlan Parker ASM

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 respondent is reprimanded.

3. Pursuant to section 107(4)(a) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of six months.

4. Pursuant to section 62(2)(a)(ii) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Health Ombudsman dated 19 January 2021, placing conditions upon the respondent’s registration.

5. Pursuant to section 107(4)(b)(i) of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld), the respondent is prohibited from providing any health service, until such time as the respondent obtains registration as a health practitioner under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) or a corresponding law of another State or Territory of Australia.

6.     Each party to the proceeding is to bear their own costs for the proceeding.

7. Pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009, publication of:

(a)     the contents of a document or other thing produced at the Tribunal;

(b)     evidence given before the Tribunal; and

(c)     any order made or reasons given by the Tribunal.

is prohibited to the extent that it could identify or lead to the identification of any patient of the respondents’ or any family member of that patient, save as is necessary for the Office of the Health Ombudsman to provide information to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency in the exercise of the Health Ombudsman’s functions under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent paramedic was convicted of one count of stealing whereby he stole cash from a patient whilst in their home – where the offence occurred during the course of his employment – where the conduct is not disputed by the respondent – where the respondent has co-operated with the proceedings and demonstrated remorse and insight into the offending – whether the proposed sanction is appropriate

Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld) s 62, s 94, s 107

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) s 41

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 66

Health Ombudsman v Fletcher [2020] QCAT 478

Health Ombudsman v McCarthy [2021] QCAT 79

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Sotingco (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 1615

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

L Burgess, Office of…

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 Roza 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 420
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was an application by the Health Ombudsman to sanction Mr Louis Roza, a former paramedic, following a conviction for stealing $580 from a deceased patient's wallet. Mr Roza was found guilty of theft by a court in January 2021, and the Health Ombudsman referred the matter to the Tribunal under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld). The Tribunal had to decide whether Mr Roza's conduct constituted professional misconduct and, if so, what sanctions should be imposed. The Tribunal also needed to consider the appropriate level of public protection and the need for general deterrence.

The Tribunal found that Mr Roza's conduct did constitute professional misconduct. The theft occurred during the course of his employment, and he had breached the trust of his employer and the patient. The Tribunal took into account Mr Roza's cooperation with the police investigation, his guilty plea, full restitution, and expressions of remorse. The Tribunal also considered the psychologist's report, which indicated that Mr Roza was suffering from major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and unresolved bereavement. However, the Tribunal held that his mental health issues did not excuse his misconduct. The Tribunal found that the appropriate sanctions were a reprimand, a six-month disqualification from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner, and a prohibition on providing any health service until he was registered. The Tribunal also set aside the decision of the Health Ombudsman placing conditions upon Mr Roza's registration.

The Tribunal made an order prohibiting publication of any information that could identify the deceased patient or his widow, to protect their privacy. The Tribunal held that such an order was in the interests of justice and did not breach the principles of open justice. The Tribunal also ordered that each party bear their own costs. The Tribunal's decision was based on the need to protect the public, maintain professional standards, and deter future misconduct.

Orders