HH [2014] WASAT 95

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2014] WASAT 95
Published:	04/08/2014
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:2314/2014	Heard:	22 JULY 2014
Coram:	MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER)	Delivered:	1/08/14
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Guardian appointed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HH
Catchwords:	Guardianship Treatment decisions Reasonable judgments Health and safety Oversight Common law position on capacity to make treatment decisions Delusional disorder impacting on capacity to make reasonable judgments Guardianship and parental authority
Legislation:	Guardian and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43, s 43(1), s 44, s 44(5), s 45, s 45(1), s 51, s 84, s 97(1)(b)(i)
Case References:	Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter [2009] WASC 229 FS [2007] WASAT 202 Hunter and New England Area Health Service v A [2009] NSWSC 761 NCK [2004] WAGAB 6
Summary	A 66yearold man was diagnosed with heart disease but had refused treatment for the condition.,A mental health service applied for a guardian to be appointed for the man to make treatment decisions in respect to the heart disease.,The man was assessed as having a delusional disorder such that he did not accept there was a physical basis to his heart disease but rather the problem with his heart was caused by anxiety that had arisen from traumatic events in his life. ,The Tribunal found that the man was unable to make reasonable judgments in respect to treatment for the heart disease and appointed a guardian for that purpose.,Submissions were made on the difficulty of giving practical effect to the operation of the guardianship order if the man continued to refuse treatment.,The Tribunal determined that the role of a guardian is like that of a parent and in that role might find it difficult to enforce decisions made from time to time.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : HH [2014] WASAT 95 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (SENIOR MEMBER) HEARD : 22 JULY 2014 DELIVERED : 1 AUGUST 2014 PUBLISHED : 4 AUGUST 2014 FILE NO/S : GAA 2314 of 2014 MATTER : HH

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Guardianship Treatment decisions Reasonable judgments Health and safety Oversight Common law position on capacity to make treatment decisions Delusional disorder impacting on capacity to make reasonable judgments Guardianship and parental authority

Legislation:

Guardian and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 4, s 43, s 43(1), s 44, s 44(5), s 45, s 45(1), s 51, s 84, s 97(1)(b)(i)

Result:

Guardian appointed

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

A 66yearold man was diagnosed with heart disease but had refused treatment for the condition.

A mental health service applied for a guardian to be appointed for the man to make treatment decisions in respect to the heart disease.
The man was assessed as having a delusional disorder such that he did not accept there was a physical basis to…

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.

Continue reading HH

Details

AGLC: HH [2014] WASAT 95
Case: [2014] WASAT 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of HH [2014] WASAT 95, the State Administrative Tribunal was asked to determine whether a 66-year-old man, who had been diagnosed with heart disease but refused treatment due to a delusional disorder, required a guardian to make treatment decisions on his behalf. The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the man was unable to make reasonable judgments in respect to treatment for his heart disease, and whether a guardian was necessary to ensure his health and safety. The Tribunal found that the man's delusional disorder, which caused him to believe that his heart condition was caused by anxiety rather than a physical problem, rendered him incapable of making reasonable judgments about treatment for his heart disease. The Tribunal also found that he was in need of oversight, care or control in the interests of his own health and safety, and therefore a guardian should be appointed.

The Tribunal reasoned that the man's delusional disorder effectively blocked the processing of the medical information given to him about his heart disease, and that his heart disease was treatable and would worsen over time if left untreated. The Tribunal further considered the role of a guardian, which is like that of a parent, and in that role might find it difficult to enforce decisions made from time to time. However, the Tribunal found that it was in the man's best interests that a guardian be appointed to make treatment decisions in respect of his heart disease and to decide matters incidental thereto. The Public Advocate was appointed as the limited guardian, and the order was set to be reviewed in five years.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the man required a guardian to make treatment decisions in respect of his heart disease, and appointed the Public Advocate as the limited guardian. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals with mental health issues receive appropriate care and support, and the role of guardians in facilitating this process.

Orders