Case Study on Health Law
Added on 2020-04-07
11 Pages3226 Words236 Views
Running head: HEALTH LAWHealth Law CaseName of the student:Name of the university:Author note
1HEALTH LAWLO 1The present case is based on the procedural activities of the Human Rights ReviewTribunal (HRRT). The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a statutory body working in theprovinces of New Zealand and protecting the rights of the individuals by determining therights as a whole. The tribunal can exercise its power over the matters related to Humanrights Law and Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (Perkins et al., 2015). It has been made under section 50 of the Code of the tribunal that Director ofProceedings can make an appeal to the tribunal if there are sufficient grounds regarding thealleged offence. It is also mentioned under section 51 that if the Director of Proceedingdenied taking the allegations, the aggrieved party can make an appeal to the tribunal directly(Squires & Anderson, 2015). The tribunal has certain powers that are wide in nature and it established theapplication of human rights in the territory of New Zealand. The tribunal determines thehuman rights matter based on substantial matters and not on technicalities (Larson, 2017). Allthe determinations made by the tribunal create implications on society. Whenever, anallegation made by the Health and Disability Commissioner under any section of theregulation, it is the duty of the tribunal to take immediate action regarding the same. In the present case, it has been observed that the aggrieved party is a twenty years oldteenager who was suffered from spectrum disorder and certain intellectual disabilities. Heneeded special care and for the same reason his mother engaged Care Group Ltd to providehome service to support her child (Krahn, Walker & Correa-De-Araujo, 2015). However, ithas been mentioned under the Health and Disability Act 1994 that it is the utmost duty of thehealth care worker to take reasonable care regarding the aggrieved person. If there is anyviolation occurred regarding the interest of a person, the affected person may get certain
2HEALTH LAWopportunities to claim for damage from the offender. However, it has been mentioned undersection 51 of the Code of HRRT that a person only can make a claim if the Director ofProceedings denied taking any action. Therefore, a person has to approach before theDirector of Proceedings first. Under the Health and Disabilities Act, the definition and the function of the Directorshave been mentioned. According to section 15 of the Act, it has been stated that the mainobjective of it is to manage the activities effectively. they are responsible to the commissionerfor all these efficiency, but regarding the powers they are not responsible to thecommissioner. Therefore, it can be stated that the directors are enjoying statutory positionunder the Act. The function of the Director has been engraved under section 49 of the Actthat provides the Directors to decide issue regarding disciplinary provisions or process beforethe tribunal or court (Furrow et al., 2015).In this case, it has been observed that the Directors of Proceeding had made a claimbefore the tribunal under section 50 of the Health and Disability Commissioners Act 1994. LO 2The present case attracts certain provisions form the civil and criminal law. It can bestated that the support worker had shown reluctances towards the victim. In both the civil andcriminal sections, the defendant had acted negligently and he had violate the rules mentionedunder the provisions of the Health and Disability Commissioners Act 1994 (Humphrey &Chiarella, 2015). The present case has been attracts the provisions regarding the Tort Law ofNew Zealand. Under this Act, any aggrieved person may bring action against the wrongdoerand claim for damages. It is the right of every citizen to get certain benefits to lead life. Ifthere is a breach occurred, the aggrieved person may claim damage under the provision ofTort law.
3HEALTH LAWThere are certain other provisions mentioned about the grounds or remedies that thevictim may approach regarding any default made b y the health care practitioner due to thecourse of their practice. It has been stated under the Right 4 (5) of the Code of Health andDisability Services Consumer’s Rights that it is the basic right of a patient to get good qualityservices. It is a fact that in health sector trust is an essential element. It has been stated underthe relevant provision of law that if the medical practitioner has done any negligent acts orany person involved in health care practice, the victim can file case before the consumerforum. Nature of the negligent act in health care practice is medico-negligent. In the present case, it has been observed that the victim, who lost his life for thenegligent act of the caretaker, was twenty years old. It is the sheer irresponsibility of thecaretaker who had not only showed his irresponsibility, but violated the norms of the Healthand Disability Commissioners Act 1994. It has been stated under section 49 (1) of the Actthat a person cannot engage with more than one patient at a time. In this case, it has beenobserved that the alleged person had looked after two patients at the same time. Therefore,negligence has been observed on behalf of the defendant (Dale & St John, 2016).The Crimes Act 1961 governs the provision regarding the criminal activity of NewZealand. Certain provisions of the criminal law will also be applicable in this case. It can bestated that the offender in this case had negligently act and that action take the life of theaggrieved person who used to be his patient. It is his duty to take care to his patient and hefailed to do it. It has been stated in the case that the person confessed his guilt regarding theviolation of the Health and Disability Commissioners Act 1994. The nature of the crime inthis case is accidental and therefore, a civil suit will be filed and follow the disciplinaryproceedings (Arnold, 2013).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Healthcare Law Assignment PDFlg...
|10
|2505
|80
Human Rights Review Tribunal Assignmentlg...
|13
|3416
|44
The Factual Specifics of the Caselg...
|6
|1268
|11
Company Law Assignment | Commercial & Corporation Actlg...
|9
|2084
|279
Lewski v ASIC (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 171 - Analysis of Breach of Duties by Directors under Corporation Act 2001lg...
|13
|861
|210
Business Law Assignment - Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and Rights Violationlg...
|7
|962
|319