Paramedicine Board of Australia and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Nehring
[2025] QCAT 239
•14 August 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Paramedicine Board of Australia and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Nehring [2025] QCAT 239
PARTIES:
PARAMEDICINE BOARD OF AUSTRALIA (applicant)
NURSING AND MIDWIFERY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
(applicant)
v
JUSTIN NEHRING (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR224-23
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
14 August 2025
HEARING DATE:
25 June 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Judicial Member Jones
Assisted by:
Ms D Blond, Public Panel
Mrs C McKenzie, Paramedic Panel
Mr L Parker ASM, Paramedic Panel
Ms E McKibbin, Nurse Panel
Mr J McNab, Nurse PanelORDERS:
IT IS THE DECSION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:
1. Pursuant to 196(1)(b)(ii) of the National Law, in respect of ground 1, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.
2. Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, in respect of grounds 2, 3 and 4, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
3. Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(i) of the National Law, in respect of ground 5, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional performance.
4. Pursuant to 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.
5. Pursuant to section 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a paramedic for a period of six months.
6. Pursuant to section 196(4)(b) of the National Law, the respondent is prohibited from providing a health service as a paramedic until he obtains registration.
7. There be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – OTHER HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – where the respondent had dual registration as a paramedic and registered nurse – where his registration as a paramedic has recently lapsed – where there are five allegations against the respondent regarding his conduct as a paramedic – where the respondent denies the allegations – whether the allegations are made out on the evidence – what is the appropriate characterisation of the conduct – where the Board seeks a finding that the respondent is effectively prevented from practising as both a paramedic and registered nurse for at least two years – whether the respondent should be disqualified
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
C Bowman instructed by McInnes Wilson Lawyers
Respondent:
Self-represented
REASONS FOR DECISION
This proceeding is concerned with an application brought by the Paramedicine Board of Australia and the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (‘applicants’) against JH (‘respondent’). The application is somewhat unusual in that it involves proceedings against the respondent, both in his capacity as a paramedic but also as a registered nurse. The applicants were represented by Mr Bowman of counsel. The respondent appeared in person. At all material times, the respondent was a registered health practitioner with separate registration in paramedicine and nursing and was employed by the Queensland Ambulance Service (‘QAS’) as an advanced care paramedic (‘ACP’).
There are four allegations levelled at the respondent. Ground 1 is an allegation of inappropriate clinical care. Ground 2 is an allegation of inappropriate administration of medicine. Grounds 3 and 4 involve allegations of false and/or misleading information and record keeping. Ground 5 involved an allegation of breaching appropriate therapeutic boundaries of a patient. Grounds 1 to 4 all occurred on 8 May 2021. Ground 5 involved a totally separate incident which occurred on or about 16 May 2021.
Each of the allegations will be dealt with in some detail below, but at the time, the respondent had been an ACP with the QAS for over 20 years. His employment with the QAS was terminated on or about 9 September 2022. However, the respondent continued to practise as a registered nurse in a prison at Rockhampton. While practising as a nurse, the respondent has completed a Master of Nursing and has applied to Ahpra for endorsement as a nurse practitioner. As the Tribunal understands it, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia is awaiting the outcome of these proceedings before deciding that application. The respondent had a prior notification history as a nurse dating back to 2018; however, there is only limited detail of the facts, matters and circumstances surrounding that matter.
In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants, the following findings and orders were sought:
(a)Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (‘National Law’), the respondent behaved in a way that constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) as defined in section 5 of the National Law.
(b)Pursuant to section 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent be reprimanded.
(c)Pursuant to 196(2)(e) of the National Law, the respondent’s registration as a paramedic and registered nurse be cancelled.
(d)Pursuant to section 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent be disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for two years.
(e)Pursuant to 196(4)(b) of the National Law, the respondent is prohibited from providing any health service until he obtains registration as a health practitioner.
At the hearing of this proceeding, Mr Bowman made a slight amendment to those submissions to the effect that the cancellation of the respondent’s registration as a paramedic is no longer pressed as the respondent let his registration lapse on 1 January 2025. Fundamentally, it is the respondent’s position that all of the grounds should have been dealt with in-house and no adverse findings and/or sanctions should be made against him.
The evidence of two paramedics was taken during the course of the hearing and relied on by the applicants. That evidence really consisted of what was recorded in their respective records of interviews. In addition, the record of interviews of other QAS officers and other material contained in the hearing brief was relied on by the applicants. The respondent did not call any evidence, and essentially, the hearing proceeded on the basis of the statement of agreed and disputed facts, the submissions made on or behalf of the parties and other documents contained in the hearing brief, where appropriate.
In respect of each of the grounds made against the respondent, it is accepted by the applicants that they bear the onus of proof in accordance with the principles established in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. That is, the more serious the allegation, the more substantial the evidence required to prove it on the balance of probabilities.
Disputed Factual Matters
Ground 1
It is uncontroversial that on 8 May 2021, the respondent, together with another paramedic, was on a 12-hour shift from 7:00am to 7:00pm. It is also uncontroversial that the respondent and most likely the other officer had not had any substantial sustenance for about nine and a-half hours when, at or about 4:35pm, they stopped at a Red Rooster restaurant.
In respect of ground 1, in the amended submissions on behalf of the applicants, the particulars are as follows:
(a)On 8 May 2021, the respondent was rostered on a shift with another QAS officer from 7:00am to 7:00pm.
(b)At approximately 4:35pm, the respondent and Officer A were stopped at a Red Rooster food restaurant located at Farm Street in Rockhampton.
(c)At approximately 4:36pm, the respondent and Officer A were inside the restaurant and received and responded to an emergency call for a Code 1B callout for Patient A, who was located at the Etna Creek Correctional Centre (‘ECCC’).
(d)Patient A, to whom the Code 1B callout related, was classified ‘acute’ in a state of hypertensive crisis.
(e)After accepting the Code 1B callout, the respondent proceeded to order food from the restaurant.
(f)Officer A communicated to the respondent that they should depart immediately upon accepting the Code 1B callout and the respondent stated to Officer A words to the effect of, ‘it’s okay mate you can order, go and get some food.’
(g)Officer A did not order food and immediately returned to the ambulance unit.
(h)The respondent did not leave the restaurant immediately and waited to collect his food that he had ordered.
(i)At approximately 4:38pm, the respondent collected his food from the restaurant and returned to the ambulance unit.
(j)Between 4:39pm and 4:40pm, the respondent and Officer A left the restaurant in the ambulance unit to respond to the Code 1B callout.
(k)Therefore, it was approximately a three to four minute delay between when the respondent responded to, and accepted, the Code 1B callout and leaving the restaurant to continue to the ECCC. (Emphasis added).
It should be noted at this early stage that the best evidence is that the respondent had, in fact, ordered and paid for his food prior to the emergency call. According to the respondent, he said that he needed to eat something as he was feeling dehydrated, lightheaded and nauseous, and that he considered that he could not function properly as an ACP if he did not eat anything. The respondent also said that the delay was only about one and a-half minutes. However, he did acknowledge that he should have left immediately, and, in fact, apologised for his delayed action. It should also be noted that there were no adverse consequences for the patient resulting from any delay and that the patient’s medical history was known to the respondent, and the respondent also knew that the patient was, at the time, under medical supervision at the prison.
The statements of the two employees at the Red Rooster make it clear that the respondent was pushing to have his order dealt with urgently. The evidence also establishes that as soon as the respondent received his order, he rushed out of the restaurant to the ambulance. The other paramedic did not provide any probative evidence as to how long the delay might have been. However, a detailed investigation was carried out which resulted in a written report published in December 2021. Investigation included a review of the CCTV recording of the activities on that day within the restaurant. Leaving aside the error in recording the visit at about 3:36pm instead of 4:36pm, the timeline reveals a delay much more consistent with the respondent’s version.[1]
[1]Hearing brief filed 14 April 2025, 177-178.
Indeed, in this regard, the investigating officer reported:
While the delay involved in [the respondent] waiting for his food to be prepared was only two minutes and arguably did not significantly delay the arrival at the ECCC, this does not alter the fact that his actions in not immediately returning to his vehicle to respond to the Code 1 incident did cause a delay to the vehicle responding and was in breach of the relevant SOP.
In support of the applicants’ position, the Tribunal was referred to a document said to display mapping data records.[2] That document observes that, as a result of reviewing the data, ‘there appears to be approximately four minutes of no movement following dispatch.’ The reliability of that evidence was not satisfactorily explained in the Tribunal’s opinion. On balance, the Tribunal prefers the evidence that any delay was between one and a-half to two minutes and not three to four minutes.
[2]Ibid 162.
In regard to ground 1, the Tribunal is of the view that having regard to the length of the delay, together with other mitigating factors in favour of the respondent, his conduct ought be characterised as being unprofessional conduct. Had there been a lengthier delay that had the potential to result in adverse consequence for the patient, absent special circumstances, it would almost inevitably resulted in a finding of professional misconduct.
Grounds 2, 3 and 4
Each of these grounds are concerned with the Code 1 call involved in ground 1 and the administration by the respondent of glyceryl trinitrate (‘GTN’) to the patient from the prison in Rockhampton.
The particulars in respect of ground 2 are stated as follows:
The administration by the respondent of two doses of GTN as outlined above:
(a) by reference to the QAS protocol:
(i)was not indicated in Patient [A’s] circumstances because he did not meet any of the prescribed indications for giving GTN in the QAS protocol; and
(ii)was outside the respondent’s scope of practice as an ACP because the administration of GTN by ACP outside the prescribed indications in the QAS protocol was not permitted;
(iii)was undertaken either without the required mandatory approval or with improperly obtained mandatory approval (in that it was obtained on the basis of the respondent’s failure to inform Officer B, Officer C about Patient A’s altered level of consciousness and one-sided weakness and deficit and/or misrepresentations of advice he had been given by Officer B and Officer C); and
(b) was undertaken contrary to the expressed advice and directions of the Consult Line and Senior Operational Supervisor
In respect of the allegation concerning the accuracy or otherwise of the condition of the patient as informed by the respondent to other officers, the Tribunal does not consider that there is any significant merit in that allegation. In any event, even if it were established, it would not really advance this particular allegation against the respondent any further.
The particulars of ground 3 are as follows:
During his telephone call with Officer D on the Consult Line, the respondent informed D words to the effect that:
(a) Officer C was happy for him to give the first dose of GTN to Patient [A], but with a [clinical care paramedic (‘CCP’)] there; and
(b) there was no CCP there, but Officer B had approved him giving the GTN without a CCP there.
The information provided by the respondent to Officer D on the Consult Line was false and/or misleading, as:
(a) Officer C did not provide approval for the respondent to administer GTN to Patient [A]; and
(b) Officer B did not provide approval to the respondent to administer GTN to the Patient A and directed him to telephone the Consult Line in respect of his request to give the GTN.
In respect of ground 4, the allegation of inadequate and false and/or misleading record keeping, the particulars could be summarised as follows: On 8 May 2021, the respondent created an Electronic Ambulance Record (‘eARF’) for the relevant clinical consultation above with Patient A in which he recorded that, inter alia, he had been given approval to administer GTN by a CCP (identified incorrectly as ‘Simon’) via the Consult Line at 5:35pm.
It is almost inevitable that if the Tribunal finds that the applicants’ allegations concerning ground 2 are made out, similar findings would almost inevitably follow in respect of grounds 3 and 4. That, of course, does not necessarily mean that a finding of deliberate and/or dishonest conduct must follow.
In the statement of agreed and disputed facts in respect of ground 2, the respondent:
(a)denies that Officer B did not provide approval for the respondent to administer GTN to Patient A and directed him to telephone the Consult Line;
(b)says that he believed that he had approval from Officer B and there may have been a miscommunication as he was in a moving ambulance with lots of noise from traffic, the patient and general movement (emphasis added);
(c)denies that, upon arrival at the hospital, Officer B asked the respondent about Patient A, to which the respondent replied that he had only administered a single dose of GTN;
(d)otherwise denies allegations and/or particulars contained in paragraph 50; and
(e)denies the characterisation of the conduct.
Officer B referred to by the respondent is a critical care paramedic who has been employed by the QAS since January 1990. Officer B was interviewed on 5 October 2021. Given the passage of time and the fact that there was a very heavy workload on 8 May 2021, it was not surprising that he had only a ‘very limited’ recollection of the events of that day. Notwithstanding his limited recollection of the actual events on that day, Officer B was adamant that, in the circumstances of the situation as described to him, he would not have given the respondent authority to administer GTN to the patient. There was no challenge by the respondent to any of the contents of the record of interview of Officer B.
It should be noted here that the other paramedic with the respondent that day, who was driving the ambulance at the time, was unable to give any probative evidence in respect of the substance underlying this allegation, other than to say that when the prospect of administering GTN to the patient was raised by the respondent, he disagreed with that course of action.
Finally, in respect of the evidence in relation to this particular ground, the record of interview of Officer C, also a critical care paramedic, makes it sufficiently clear that he told the respondent that he should not administer GTN without a critical care paramedic being present.
On balance, the Tribunal finds that it is more likely than not that the respondent was not given the necessary authority to administer GTN to the patient. Even accepting that the respondent might have believed that he had been given authority, his own evidence is that he might have misunderstood what he was being told. In this regard, reference has already been made to what he referred to in the statement of agreed and disputed facts.
That there could have been a misunderstanding in respect of what the respondent was told was also reflected in the answers given by the respondent during his record of interview. After listening to the second consult-line recording, the interviewer asked the respondent whether he had any sort of initial statements that he wanted to make in response? The respondent answered:
yeah, looking back… all I can say for this whole situation is that… I have a poor recollection of what’s happened. I’m not sure why that is. I just obviously have – and that I would never give any medication or drugs outside my scope of practice. I never have in the last 18 years of working. And I would, as I said – would never give anything [unless] … I thought, and I stress, thought authority had been given, and that’s why I gave it. If they had said no, not to give it, I would not have given it.
But obviously there was a miscommunication somewhere. Whether it was traffic noise, the patient, stress of the job, driving to hospital, no backup available, there was a multitude of things that could – but yeah … I would never give a drug without authority. Yeah. That’s – well – I have a poor recollection of it, and I wish I had a better one, I really do.
(Emphasis added).
To administer GTN without clear authorisation is a serious breach of the relevant QAS drug therapy protocols. That is what the respondent did. It was his professional responsibility to make sure that he had been given approval to administer the drug. His failure to do so fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner. In this regard, though, the Tribunal is not prepared to find that the respondent’s conduct involved a course a deliberate and intentional breach of the relevant drug therapeutic protocols.
In this regard, Mr Bowman initially said that in respect of grounds 3 and 4, and by necessary implication, ground 2, ‘we accept that that could be done in some innocent capacity where it was simply mistaken as [the respondent] alleges.’ During his reply, however, Mr Bowman withdrew that concession and urged the Tribunal to find that the respondent had acted in a deliberate manner and deliberately contravened the relevant protocols, and that this was not an instance of mistaken belief on the part of the respondent.
As the Tribunal understands it, that submission relied heavily on the evidence of Officer B, the effect that in relevant circumstances, ‘there is no way that I would have suggested that he should.’ That evidence has to be seen for what it is. That is, with no disrespect to Officer B at all, it is evidence about what he would have expected his response to be. It is not exact evidence of what actually did occur on that day, of which he had only a very limited recollection of. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it does not provide probative evidence about what the respondent may or may not have heard or thought he heard at the other end of the telephone call. On balance, the Tribunal is not sufficiently satisfied that the respondent’s course of conduct involved a deliberate and intentional breach of the relevant drug administration protocols.
However, the respondent’s actions of not ensuring that he had the relevant authority resulted in, despite what his belief might have been, him wrongly administering GTN and providing misleading information during his communication on the Consult Line (ground 3) and in him being responsible for inadequately and/or misleading record-keeping (ground 4). In respect of ground 3, by reference to the amended particulars provided on behalf of the applicants, it is not at all apparent as to why it is alleged that the respondent gave false or misleading information concerning the communication with Officer C.[3]
[3]Boards’ Amended Outline of Submissions filed 14 March 2025, 10 [64(a)], [65(a)].
To put it bluntly, given the seriousness of the situation, the professional obligation or duty of the respondent was not to administer GTN unless he had express and unambiguous authority to do so. To act in the absence of such authority, the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
Having regard to the finding in respect of ground 2, that is, involving a finding of professional misconduct, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to make separate findings in respect of the characterisation of grounds 3 and 4. Rather, the Tribunal finds that the totality of the respondent’s conduct in respect of those grounds constitutes professional misconduct
Ground 5
While there might be debate about the overall characterisation of this conduct, the Tribunal is of the view that, given the nature of the particulars alleged against the respondent, it is desirable to make findings as to the relevant facts. On this occasion, the respondent, together with another paramedic, was attending to a young Indigenous woman who had apparently had a miscarriage. Based on the evidence of the other attending paramedic, it is alleged that the respondent:
without any clinical or access justifications, climbed onto the end of [Patient B’s] bed with both feet off the ground, positioned himself in a kneeling position above and close to Patient B, placed his hands on either side of her body, and then leaned over Patient B to engage with her.
Further, that the respondent’s positioning:
(a)left her feeling uncomfortable; and
(b)was unnecessary and inappropriate.
The respondent denies any inappropriate conduct on his part. Further, in his written response to that allegation he said:
Patient B did not complain about the respondent’s conduct at any time. Patient B said that she did not want anyone in the premises to hear what was happening, and the respondent had to position himself close to her to have a confidential conversation with the patient. At some time, the respondent may have been close to Patient B, but moved away so he did not make her feel uncomfortable.
It is to be noted that the other paramedic also reported that the respondent has touched the patient on the leg once or twice. That is no longer being pressed. That paramedic also said to the effect that the respondent appeared to be trying to engage with and reassure the patient.
The patient was interviewed on 23 June 2021. She rejected any suggestion that the respondent has touched her and described his conduct in a series of questions and answers, in part of which she said:
… the male respondent was, like, leaning over me...
… Like, he had his arm over me, like, leaning like that. And the other paramedic, the lady one was like, “hey, can you please move your arm. You’re not supposed to have your arm over them like that.”
When asked ‘how long did he have his arm over you?’ Patient B responded, ‘a couple of minutes.’ Patient B was asked how it made her feel, to which she initially replied ‘yeah, it was a bit uncomfortable’. Finally, Patient B was asked whether ‘he touch[ed] any part of [her] body at all…?’ Patient B’s response was, ‘no. He just leaned over me.’
In the investigative report referred to earlier, after interviewing the respondent and the patient and the other paramedic, the author of that report reported as follows:
During his interview, [the respondent] confirmed that he had placed his arm on either side of the patient and leaned close to her to get her attention, given the chaotic nature of the surrounding environment. And in hindsight, he may have been “possibly a little bit close.” After consideration of all available evidence, the investigator formed the view that while the evidence supports a conclusion that [the respondent] had placed his arms on either side of the patient and leaned into her personal space, there was insufficient evidence to reliably conclude that he’d climbed onto the bed on his knees and/or touched her leg.
[40]On balance, supported by the evidence of the patient, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the respondent as to his actual physical conduct on that day. The Tribunal also accepts that at all times, he was acting in a manner designed to engage with and reassure a clearly distressed and probably very embarrassed young woman. During closing submissions, Mr Bowman said, ‘if looked at on its own, ground 5, if proven, constitutes unsatisfactory professional conduct. The Tribunal agrees and considers it appropriate to look at this ground in isolation as it is an entirely different course of conduct separated from the other grounds, not only in time and place but also because of its nature and characterisation.
Appropriate Sanctions
Dealing firstly with his employment as a paramedic, in the statement of agreed and disputed facts, it is said that on 9 September 2022, the respondent’s employment was suspended. However, in the applicants’ written submissions, it is said that the respondent’s employment as a paramedic was in fact terminated on that date. Regardless of that difference, the respondent, as at the date of hearing, has not been able to act in the profession as a paramedic for a period of nearly three years.
Having regard to the findings concerning the characterisation of the respondent’s conduct on 8 May 2021, to prevent him from reapplying for registration in that profession for a further two years would result in a punitive outcome in the view of the Tribunal. It is not an outcome warranted by the need to protect the safety and wellbeing of the public, nor to protect the reputation of the profession and the need to send an appropriate message of either personal or general deterrence.
That said, the conduct involved in ground 2, aggravated by grounds 3 and 4, result in a serious example of professional misconduct. The cumulative effect of each of the grounds alleged against the respondent warrants an order that the respondent be reprimanded and disqualified from re-applying for registration as a paramedic for a period of six months.
Turning to the sanctions sought in respect of the respondent’s registration as a nurse, the conduct that brought the respondent before this Tribunal occurred four years ago. The respondent’s current position is that he is employed by Queensland Health as what he described as being a clinical nurse working 60 hours per fortnight. Also, since the incident that occurred in 2018 that has already been referred to, there appears to be no record of any further untoward conduct specifically associated with the respondent’s practice as a nurse.
During his opening, Mr Bowman submitted that while all of the conduct of the respondent occurred within his capacity as a paramedic, nonetheless, that conduct was inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration as a nurse, pursuant to subparagraph (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in s 5 of the National Law.
In cases such as this, it is always necessary to have at the forefront of any consideration that the objective of the Tribunal is not to impose a punitive outcome, but to deliver an outcome that, as far as is practicable, promotes the health and safety of the public. That is the paramount consideration. The order sought by the applicants, insofar as it concerns his employment as a nurse, would result in an unwarranted punitive outcome. It would effectively prevent the respondent from practising in both branches of his chosen professions for at least two years. Such an outcome would not only have potential serious consequences for the respondent’s professional future, but also in all likelihood, serious financial consequences.
Further, it is the opinion of the Tribunal that, as serious as his conduct was when acting as a paramedic and accepting the numerous similarities between the two professions, as evidenced by their equal participation in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme, it is not sufficient to warrant a finding now that the respondent is not a fit and proper person to hold registration as a nurse. Particularly in circumstances where he has been practising as a nurse since 2021 with no suggestion of any unprofessional conduct on his part. His continuation of practice in that capacity on the evidence before the Tribunal does not reveal a risk to the health and safety of the public, nor to any material extent to the reputation and standing of the nursing profession.
That said, the conduct of the respondent concerning the administration of the GTN is, in the view of the Tribunal, a matter of concern in regard to the respondent’s conduct as a health practitioner generally. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers it appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case to reprimand the respondent both in respect of his profession as a paramedic and as a registered nurse.
It should be noted that had the Tribunal been sufficiently satisfied that the conduct of the respondent involved a deliberate or grossly reckless course of action (e.g., disregarding clear instructions not to administer GTN or failing to seek any instructions), it would have been almost certain that a period of suspension concerning his practice as a registered nurse would have also been imposed.
On balance, the Tribunal is of the view that it is neither necessary nor desirable to impose any further sanctions specifically designed to impact on his capacity as a registered nurse. Once these reasons have been published, it will be a matter for the relevant authority to decide the outcome of his application for accreditation as a nurse practitioner.
It should also be observed that this is a matter upon which reasonable minds might differ, and in this instance, one of the professional assessors assisting me did differ. Ultimately though, the final decision concerning the findings and consequential orders is a matter for the presiding judicial member.
For the reasons given, the findings and orders of the Tribunal are as follows:
Pursuant to 196(1)(b)(ii) of the National Law, in respect of ground 1, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unprofessional conduct.
Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, in respect of grounds 2, 3 and 4, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct.
Pursuant to section 196(1)(b)(i) of the National Law, in respect of ground 5, the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes unsatisfactory professional performance.
Pursuant to 196(2)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is reprimanded.
Pursuant to section 196(4)(a) of the National Law, the respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a paramedic for a period of six months.
Pursuant to section 196(4)(b) of the National Law, the respondent is prohibited from providing a health service as a paramedic until he obtains registration.
There be no order as to costs.
0
1
1