Health Ombudsman v Vale - [2020] QCAT 363

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Health Ombudsman v Vale [2020] QCAT 363

PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH OMBUDSMAN

(applicant)

v

MELANIE ISOBELLA VALE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR316-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2020

HEARING DATE:

30 September 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member D J McGill SC

Assisted by:

Ms Laura Dyer
Dr Kim Forrester

Mr Paul Murdoch

ORDERS:
1.   The Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in respect of the conduct the subject of the referral.

2.   The Tribunal imposes a condition on the registration of the respondent that the respondent refrain from working as a nurse in a correctional facility.

3.   The Tribunal decides that the National Law Part 7 Division 11 Subdivision 2 applies to the condition, and that the review period for the condition be two years.

4.   The parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – NURSES – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – professional misconduct - registered nurse working in correctional facility – inmate with head injury – failure to monitor adequately – failure to transfer to hospital - sanction

Health Ombudsman Act 2013, s 103(1)(a), s 104, s 107, s 109

Health Care Complaints Commission v Do [2014] NSWCA 307

Health Ombudsman v Brown [2019] QCAT 218
Health Ombudsman v Hardy [2018] QCAT 416
Health Ombudsman v Kimpton [2018] QCAT 405
Health Ombudsman v Le Garde [2019] QCAT 260
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149
Medical Board of Australia v Blomeley [2018] QCAT 163
Medical Board of Australia v de Silva [2016] QCAT 63
Medical Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Gibbons [2014] QCAT 412
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Jacobsen [2015] QCAT 549
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Tainton [2014] QCAT 161
Pharmacy Board of Australia v Thomas [2011] QCAT 637

Psychology Board of Australia v GA [2014] QCAT 409

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

A R Forbes of Turks Legal

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a referral by the applicant of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 103(1)(a), s 104. In accordance with the Act I sat with assessors Ms L Dyer, Dr K E Forrester and Mr P Murdoch.[1] On 30 September 2020 the Tribunal made the orders set out above, and said it would publish reasons in due course. These are those reasons.
[1]Health Ombudsman Act 2013 s 126. For their function, see s 127.
The respondent is and was at relevant times a registered nurse, and hence a registered health practitioner for the purposes of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Qld) (National Law). The applicant alleges that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct in that, while working as a registered nurse in a correctional facility, she did not properly assess and document the condition 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 Vale 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: [2020] QCAT 363
Decision Date: 30 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Health Ombudsman v Vale, the Health Ombudsman initiated disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse who was employed in a correctional facility. The issue at hand was whether the nurse's failure to properly monitor an inmate with a head injury, and subsequent failure to transfer the inmate to a hospital, constituted professional misconduct. The matter was heard and determined by the relevant disciplinary tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the nurse's actions amounted to professional misconduct. This required the tribunal to consider the standards expected of a registered nurse in similar circumstances, and whether the nurse's conduct fell below those standards. Additionally, the tribunal needed to determine the appropriate sanction if the nurse was found to have engaged in professional misconduct.

In its decision, the tribunal found that the nurse's failure to adequately monitor the inmate and transfer them to a hospital did indeed constitute professional misconduct. The tribunal noted that the nurse's actions were a significant departure from the standard of care expected of a registered nurse in a correctional facility, particularly given the vulnerable state of the inmate. As a result, the tribunal imposed a condition on the nurse's registration, prohibiting them from working as a nurse in a correctional facility for a period of two years. The tribunal also ordered that the costs of the proceeding be borne by the parties involved.

The tribunal's final orders were that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct, that a condition be imposed on the respondent's registration, that the review period for the condition be two years, and that the parties bear their own costs. This decision serves as a reminder to health care professionals of the high standards of care expected in their practice, and the potential consequences of failing to meet those standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal decides that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct in respect of the conduct the subject of the referral.

2. The Tribunal imposes a condition on the registration of the respondent that the respondent refrain from working as a nurse in a correctional facility.

3. The Tribunal decides that the National Law Part 7 Division 11 Subdivision 2 applies to the condition, and that the review period for the condition be two years.

4. The parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.