Health Law: Analysis of HRRT Case, Legal Provisions, and Precedents

This report analyzes a Health Law case concerning the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) in New Zealand. The case involves a twenty-year-old with a spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities, whose caregiver was found negligent, violating the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. The report examines the powers and functions of the HRRT, the relevant civil and criminal law provisions, including Tort Law and the Crimes Act 1961. It highlights the importance of burden and standard of proof, and the application of the Consumer Guarantee Act. The report also draws parallels with similar cases, such as Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner v Mogridge and Director of Proceedings v Nikau, to illustrate the implications of the defendant's actions and the remedies available to the victim's family. The report discusses the role of the Director of Proceedings, the rights of consumers to receive proper care, and the tribunal's power to deliver remedies. The analysis emphasizes negligence, duty of care, and the consequences of breaching professional standards within the healthcare sector.

Running head: HEALTH LAW
Health Law Case
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1HEALTH LAW
LO 1
The present case is based on the procedural activities of the Human Rights Review
Tribunal (HRRT). The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a statutory body working in the
provinces of New Zealand and protecting the rights of the individuals by determining the
rights as a whole. The tribunal can exercise its power over the matters related to Human
rights 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 of
Proceedings can make an appeal to the tribunal if there are sufficient grounds regarding the
alleged offence. It is also mentioned under section 51 that if the Director of Proceeding
denied 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 the
application of human rights in the territory of New Zealand. The tribunal determines the
human rights matter based on substantial matters and not on technicalities (Larson, 2017). All
the determinations made by the tribunal create implications on society. Whenever, an
allegation made by the Health and Disability Commissioner under any section of the
regulation, 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 old
teenager who was suffered from spectrum disorder and certain intellectual disabilities. He
needed special care and for the same reason his mother engaged Care Group Ltd to provide
home service to support her child (Krahn, Walker & Correa-De-Araujo, 2015). However, it
has been mentioned under the Health and Disability Act 1994 that it is the utmost duty of the
health care worker to take reasonable care regarding the aggrieved person. If there is any
violation occurred regarding the interest of a person, the affected person may get certain

2HEALTH LAW
opportunities to claim for damage from the offender. However, it has been mentioned under
section 51 of the Code of HRRT that a person only can make a claim if the Director of
Proceedings denied taking any action. Therefore, a person has to approach before the
Director of Proceedings first.
Under the Health and Disabilities Act, the definition and the function of the Directors
have been mentioned. According to section 15 of the Act, it has been stated that the main
objective of it is to manage the activities effectively. they are responsible to the commissioner
for all these efficiency, but regarding the powers they are not responsible to the
commissioner. Therefore, it can be stated that the directors are enjoying statutory position
under the Act. The function of the Director has been engraved under section 49 of the Act
that provides the Directors to decide issue regarding disciplinary provisions or process before
the tribunal or court (Furrow et al., 2015).
In this case, it has been observed that the Directors of Proceeding had made a claim
before the tribunal under section 50 of the Health and Disability Commissioners Act 1994.
LO 2
The present case attracts certain provisions form the civil and criminal law. It can be
stated that the support worker had shown reluctances towards the victim. In both the civil and
criminal sections, the defendant had acted negligently and he had violate the rules mentioned
under 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 of
New Zealand. Under this Act, any aggrieved person may bring action against the wrongdoer
and claim for damages. It is the right of every citizen to get certain benefits to lead life. If
there is a breach occurred, the aggrieved person may claim damage under the provision of
Tort law.

3HEALTH LAW
There are certain other provisions mentioned about the grounds or remedies that the
victim may approach regarding any default made b y the health care practitioner due to the
course of their practice. It has been stated under the Right 4 (5) of the Code of Health and
Disability Services Consumer’s Rights that it is the basic right of a patient to get good quality
services. It is a fact that in health sector trust is an essential element. It has been stated under
the relevant provision of law that if the medical practitioner has done any negligent acts or
any person involved in health care practice, the victim can file case before the consumer
forum. 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 the
negligent act of the caretaker, was twenty years old. It is the sheer irresponsibility of the
caretaker who had not only showed his irresponsibility, but violated the norms of the Health
and Disability Commissioners Act 1994. It has been stated under section 49 (1) of the Act
that a person cannot engage with more than one patient at a time. In this case, it has been
observed 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 New
Zealand. Certain provisions of the criminal law will also be applicable in this case. It can be
stated that the offender in this case had negligently act and that action take the life of the
aggrieved person who used to be his patient. It is his duty to take care to his patient and he
failed to do it. It has been stated in the case that the person confessed his guilt regarding the
violation of the Health and Disability Commissioners Act 1994. The nature of the crime in
this case is accidental and therefore, a civil suit will be filed and follow the disciplinary
proceedings (Arnold, 2013).

4HEALTH LAW
It is to be noted that two things need to be established in this case. The first one is the
burden of proof and the second thing is the standard of proof. Burden of proof means to show
the guilt of a person. In case of the criminal cases, the prosecution have to establish the fact
regarding the commission of offence. Standard of proof means the level of proof that are
required for the same. it depicts the level. Under the Human Rights Act 1993, it has been
mentioned particularly under section 106 that it is the discretionary power of the tribunal
regarding the submission of the evidences. The examination of witnesses, submission of the
evidences either documentary or statement could be asked by the tribunal. It has been stated
under the Act that certain provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 will be applicable here to
verify the statement or the documents.
LO3
In New Zealand, there are certain provisions regarding the consumer right enforced. It
has been mentioned under the Consumer Guarantee Act of the country that any person who
enjoys certain services will be treated as consumer. Consumer service can be given to the
businesses or public bodies. It has been mentioned under the Act that professionals are
included within the terms of the consumers. In the present case, it has been observed the
mother of the deceased had contacted to one health care service and they had appointed
certain professionals to help her out. One of such professional had breached his duty by
violating the provisions of the Health and Disability Act and the outcome of the breach had
taken the life of the victim.
It can be stated here that the mother of the deceased was the consumer in this case and
she had suffered by the negligent act by the professional. It has been stated under the Act that
it is the right of the consumers to get proper service and the service must be carried out with

5HEALTH LAW
care and skills. Therefore, it can be stated that in this case, this particular provisions have not
been followed up properly. It was the duty of the offender to give reasonable care to the
patient and looked after them with special skill. However, it has been observed that the
offender had locked the patient up and went to market for shopping. It is the sheer
irresponsibility of the offender to follow up his duties properly.
It is also stated under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 that the
professional has to take reasonable steps to the patients and they should not be engaged with
more than one patient at a time. The offender has violated this rule mentioned under section
45 (1) of the Act. It has also been observed that the case was for the first time regulated by
the Directors of Proceedings. It has been stated under section 49 of the Act that in such
disciplinary proceedings actions can be taken by the Director of Proceedings. Certain duties
of the tribunals are also mentioned in this case. It has been mentioned under 54 (1) of the Act
that if there is sufficient ground to held that the defendant had breached the provisions of the
code, the Director can claim before the tribunal under section 50 of the Act. If damage
occurred regarding the breach of duty by the defendant and attracts the provision regarding
the section 57 of the Act, tribunal has the power to take necessary action against the
defendant.
It has been mentioned under the case that the defendant had made negligent act and
one of his patient died of that. Therefore, it can be stated that damage has been occurred in
this case and the defendant had to face certain punishment as per the will of the tribunal.
Under the Code of Health and Disability Commissioner’s Act, it has been mentioned that the
tribunal has the power to deliver remedies to the victim as per section 54 of the Act. Certain
provisions of the section 50 of the Act will also be applied in such case. The tribunal can
award cost against the accused or it can pass an order to cancel the practice certificate of the

6HEALTH LAW
offender. However, in case of death of the victim, the tribunal may transfer the case toi other
courts with higher authority, as the case may deem fit.
LO4
In a case of the Deputy Health and Disability Commissioner v Mogridge [2008]
NZHRRT 50, the acts of Geoffrey Mogridge had made certain observations that can be
relevant for the case. He used to provide service under section 2 of the Health and Disabilities
Act 1994 and appointed as a counsellor at the home of the complainant. However, he had
forgotten the fiduciary responsibility and engaged with the wife of the complainant
physically. It had been observed in the case that it is the duty of the defendant to maintain the
standard of his profession but he had failed to perform the same (Beasley, 2015). It is also the
duty of the health care workers to work for the protection of the public. However, both the
grounds are not fulfilled. In this present case, also the defendant had failed to perform his
duty on these grounds.
Similar grounds are observed in the case of the Director of Proceedings v Nikau
social workers [2010] NZHRRT 26 where the social worker had taken gift from the
customer who was suffering from mental illness and he had therefore, breached the duty of
the health care service. In that case, the tribunal held her liable and stated that she had to help
the patient with monetary assistance. Similar approaches have been made in the case of the
case of Radius Residential Care Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 50 where the tribunal had ordered
against the defendant and ordered them to give certain penalty to the claimant.

7HEALTH LAW
It is to be stated that the occupation chosen here is dental therapist. It denotes a team
that take certain preventive actions regarding teeth or oral problems. In New Zealand,
therapists are being trained at the University of Otago or University of Auckland. The
opportunity get by the bachelor of this course is that they are allowed to register their name as
dental therapists and dental hygienists (Tanny et al., 2016). Both the universities provided
three years course since 2007 and it is mandatory for all the therapists to be registered with
dental council. The scope regarding the occupation is stated under the Health Practitioners
Competence Assurance Act 2003. It is the duty of every dental hygienist is to prevent all the
oral disease by proper diagnosis and treatment. However, if there is any laxity observed
regarding the same and the therapists are unable to continue their professionalism to the
patient, they may face penalties for that. It is their duty to take ultimate care of the patient as
they are basically child and certain adolescent (Tilvawala et al., 2014). Therefore, special
care is required in this case.
Therefore, it can be stated from this perspective that in the provinces of the New
Zealand, the customers of the health care services are getting certain benefits if any violation
has been made that cause damage to them. The tribunal provides certain benefits to the
sufferer by way of punishing the offenders and secure the interest of the offenders. It is the
optimum duty of the tribunal to secure justice by penalise the offenders. It is a huge step
taken towards the consumers and the relevant provisions of the Health and Disability
Commissioner Act facilitate the works of the tribunal in this case. The actions made by the
tribunal are also effective for the future services of the health care sector.

8HEALTH LAW
Reference:
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016). Scope of practice in speech-
language pathology.
Arnold, P. (2013). Is There a Legal Right to Pain Relief in New Zealand. Pub. Int. LJNZ, 15.
Beasley, S. W. (2015). Understanding the responsibilities and obligations of the modern
paediatric surgeon. Journal of pediatric surgery, 50(2), 223-231.
Dale, M. C., & St John, S. (2016). New Zealand Superannuation policy and overseas state
pensions1.
Darlow, B. A., Horwood, L. J., Pere-Bracken, H. M., & Woodward, L. J. (2013).
Psychosocial outcomes of young adults born very low birth
weight. Pediatrics, 132(6), e1521-e1528.
Darlow, B. A., Horwood, L. J., Woodward, L. J., Elliott, J. M., Troughton, R. W., Elder, M.
J., ... & Melzer, T. R. (2015). The New Zealand 1986 very low birth weight cohort as
young adults: mapping the road ahead. BMC pediatrics, 15(1), 90.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.
(2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford
university press.
Furrow, B., Greaney, T., Johnson, S., Jost, T., & Schwartz, R. (2014). Health law. West
Academic.
Humphrey, C., & Chiarella, M. (2015). Legal frameworks for practice in Australia and New
Zealand. Midwifery-E-Book: Preparation for Practice, 304.

9HEALTH LAW
Krahn, G. L., Walker, D. K., & Correa-De-Araujo, R. (2015). Persons with disabilities as an
unrecognized health disparity population. American journal of public health, 105(S2),
S198-S206.
Larson, L. K. (2017). Employee Health--AIDS Discrimination (Vol. 10). Larson on
Employment Discrimination.
Perkins, G. D., Jacobs, I. G., Nadkarni, V. M., Berg, R. A., Bhanji, F., Biarent, D., ... &
Deakin, C. D. (2015). Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome
reports: update of the utstein resuscitation registry templates for out-of-hospital
cardiac arrest: a statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (American Heart Association,
European Resuscitation Council, Australian and New Zealand Council on
Resuscitation, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, InterAmerican Heart
Foundation, Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa .... Resuscitation, 96, 328-340.
Squires, D., & Anderson, C. (2015). US health care from a global perspective: spending, use
of services, prices, and health in 13 countries. The Commonwealth Fund, 15, 1-16.
Tanny, L., Komabayashi, T., Long, D. L., Yahata, Y., Moffat, S. M., & Tãne, H. (2016). The
effect of education on oral health students’ attitudes in Australia and New Zealand.
European journal of dentistry, 10(4), 491.
Tilvawala, D., Murray, C., Farah, R., & Broadbent, J. M. (2014). New Zealand dental
therapists’ beliefs regarding child maltreatment. Australian and New Zealand journal
of public health, 38(5), 480-484.

10HEALTH LAW
Wilkinson-Meyers, L., Brown, P., Reeve, J., McNeill, R., Patston, P., Dylan, S., ... &
McEldowney, J. (2014). Reducing disablement with adequate and appropriate
resources: a New Zealand perspective. Disability & Society, 29(10), 1540-1553.