The inner workings of HDC - legal & evidential issues - Health and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case B – Publicity • Dr B sought an order prohibiting publication of the anonymised opinion because some medical practitioners at least would identify Dr A. • ―Such is life in New Zealand‖ and is not a reason to compromise the important educative function of those opinions. • Name suppression not granted – open justice – no special circumstances. • Stubbs v Health and Disability Commissioner Young J, High Court Wellington, CIV 2009-485-2146, 8 February 2010.
Conclusion • There is no right of appeal from the Commissioner’s decision. • The Ombudsmen and Court showed a high degree of deference to the expertise and specialist knowledge of the Commissioner. • An opinion that a provider has breached the Code is something ―the Commissioner is well if not uniquely qualified to express‖.
Page 1 and 2: The inner workings of HDC: legal an
Page 4 and 5: Avenues of review • Internal revi
Page 6 and 7: Internal review - two pronged test
Page 8 and 9: Case A - The investigation • The
Page 10 and 11: Case A - The internal review • Co
Page 12 and 13: Case B - Key facts • The patient
Page 14 and 15: Case B - Key facts • The patient
Page 16 and 17: Case B - Key facts • A few days a
Page 18 and 19: Case B - HDC findings Dr B — brea
Page 20 and 21: Case B - Judicial review • The su
Page 22 and 23: Case B - Standard of review • Ten
Page 26: So — who is watching the watchdog

The inner workings of HDC - legal & evidential issues - Health and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?