I don’t know what it is about Queensland but I have previously reported on two Queensland paramedics who were sanctioned for striking their patient – see Two Queensland paramedics disciplined for striking their patients (February 15, 2023).  Today is another case where a Queensland paramedic was unsuccessful in an application to be reinstated after he was dismissed for slapping an elderly dementia patient across the face – Loveridge v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 207.

The gist of Mr Loveridge’s complaint was that the process adopted by Queensland Ambulance to investigate the allegations against him and to determine that the appropriate response was his dismissal, miscarried.  Deputy President Hartigan said that it would be a ‘short step’ to find that a failure by Queensland Ambulance to follow appropriate procedure would make the dismissal ‘unjust’ ([11]).

The complaint

Mr Loveridge and his paramedic partner (who was employed as part of a Graduate Paramedic Program) attended an aged care residential facility.  They were called to treat a woman with dementia who was being aggressive. There were allegations that the patient struck Mr Loveridge several times but these were ‘ineffectual’.  Mr Loveridge was heard to say, and admitted saying “If you hit me, I will have to defend myself” and “That’s assault” to the patient ([110]).  After their attendance the General Manager of the facility rang QAS and the following complaint was recorded ([42]):

Complaint against male officer on QAS unit.

Complainant stated that the male officer grabbed the patient by the face and slapped her.

He then verbally abused her, threatening her not to touch him again.

She states male officer then told nursing facility staff off for wasting hospital resources and told them that they should be managing the patient in the nursing facility.

The nursing home manager also reported the matter to police who determined to take no action ([53]).

Mr Loveridge was advised of the complaint the day it was made. Officers from QAS went to the facility and collected statements that had been prepared by staff reporting what they had observed. Mr Loveridge and his partner both denied the allegations.   

Ambulance service investigation

A formal investigation was commenced.  The investigator was ‘a Principal Complaints Officer employed in the Office of the Medical Director.  It was said that [she] … was independent of the QAS Gold Coast LASN [Local Ambulance Service Network] although she was an employee of the QAS’ ([64]). The investigator conducted interviews with staff from the aged care facility and with Mr Loveridge. 

Following receipt of the investigator’s report, Mr Loveridge was invited to ‘show cause’ why the delegate should not find that there had been misconduct.   In the course of letters between QAS and Mr Loveridge gave this version of events (at [72]):

The only time my right hand is free is when I have pulled the [sic] my hand from of [sic] the patients [sic] grip and quickly reached up above her left shoulder, next to her head, to grab the seatbelt.  I believe that this action has mistakenly given the impression that I have struck the patient when this is not the case.

All the witnesses from the facility stood by their original statements denying the possibility that what they saw was the situation described by Mr Loveridge.  One said:

I definitely seen [sic] the male paramedic force his hand onto the elderly female residents [sic] face, then slap her. After he her warned twice that he would do so.

My observations were not mistaken, I am sure.

Deputy Commissioner Emery determined that the allegation that Mr Loveridge had struck the patient was established and this constituted misconduct and that Mr Emery was considering the option of terminating Mr Loveridge’s employment. Mr Loveridge was invited to make a response which he did both in person and in writing.  Mr Emery then determined that the appropriate course was to terminate Mr Loveridge’s employment.

The industrial relations commission

The Commission role was to ensure that the process adopted was correct, not to make its own decision no whether or not Mr Loveridge should have been dismissed. To do that the Commissioner reviewed the material that was before Deputy Commissioner Emery and given the challenge to finding of misconduct, most of those witnesses also gave evidence before the Commission. 

With respect to finding that Mr Loveridge was guilty of misconduct, Her Honour said (at [289]-[292]):

I consider that it was available on the evidence before Mr Emery for him to form this conclusion. I do not accept Mr Loveridge’s contentions that Mr Emery was careless in performing his duties and making the decision.

I consider Mr Emery understood the seriousness of the allegation and undertook a process of considering the material in a careful and thorough manner.

I further accept that Mr Emery exercised an independent and open mind when considering the evidence. I accept that he did not have regard to the findings and conclusions of Ms Brightwell and consequently formed his own view on the material.

On the evidence before the Commission, there were four witnesses who deposed to seeing Mr Loveridge strike the patient.

The Commission determined (at [293]-[294]) that Mr Loveridge’s partner had given at least three different accounts starting with denying any wrongdoing to later saying she had seen Mr Loveridge strike the patient. Deputy President Hartigan took the view that her evidence could not be relied upon but the evidence of the staff at the facility was persuasive. Accordingly, she said (at [308]) ‘… on the evidence before the Commission, I am satisfied that Mr Loveridge engaged in the conduct as alleged. Further, given the nature of the conduct, I am satisfied that Mr Loveridge is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of s 18A of the AS Act.’

The issue then was whether the decision to terminate Mr Loveridge’s employment was ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’.  Her Honour, and Deputy Commissioner Emery took into account the impact termination would have on Mr Loveridge, but, said Deputy President Hartigan (at [324]-[327]):

Ultimately, I conclude, that Mr Loveridge, as a very senior and long-term employee with the QAS, did know that the conduct in which he engaged in with respect to the allegations was not of a standard expected of a senior paramedic. I have formed the view, having regard to evidence that Mr Loveridge’s conduct on 11 June 2019 radically deviated from the expected conduct of a senior paramedic. 

Relevantly, I am satisfied that the substantiated conduct is of such a nature that it was a completely inappropriate reaction to the situation, that it put the safety of a patient at actual risk of harm, that it did not adhere to the standards of the QAS and that it presented as a reputational risk to the QAS.

In my view, having regard to his position and the trust and confidence placed in him by the QAS, Mr Loveridge’s dismissal was proportionate to the conduct in which he engaged in respect of the substantiated allegations.

For this reason, I have concluded that Mr Loveridge’s dismissal was not disproportionate to the substantiated conduct.

Paramedics are at risk of assault in their work and are allowed to defend themselves and to use restraints in accordance with their clinical practice guidelines. But, as Deputy Commissioner Emery said (at [211]):

… the circumstances that Mr Loveridge found himself in on that day that led to him slapping an elderly woman are not uncommon. I get that the context of that environment was a little bit aggressive, and, you know, but it’s not uncommon and something that a paramedic is trained to and should be able to deal with at any given time. There are far more volatile circumstances that occur in our workplace as well that should not result in the assaulting of a patient either.

He did not argue that he hit her because he feared for his safety or, to use the words from Zecevic v DPP [1987] HCA 26, because he ‘believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did.’  He denied that he hit her at all, but the Ambulance Deputy Commissioner and the Industrial Relations Commission Deputy President both found that the evidence of the other witnesses established that he did.

Given that finding both the Ambulance Deputy Commissioner and the Industrial Relations Commission Deputy President determined that termination was the appropriate response As Deputy Commissioner Emery put it in the letter advising Mr Loveridge that he employment was to be terminated ([311]):

… the QAS holds a unique position of trust and confidence within the community. Our paramedics are welcomed into the patient’s home and their lives at some of the most vulnerable times the patient can experience.

Whilst I understand your desire to remain an Advanced Care Paramedic (ACP) with QAS and while I appreciate the difficulties you will face in securing alternative employment, your conduct whilst employed in the role of a paramedic with QAS was entirely inconsistent with the position our organisation, and its employees hold within the community.

Deputy President Hartigan said (at [332]):

Mr Loveridge did not meet the relevant requirements imposed upon him as an employee by a standard of conduct of the Code of Conduct in respect of the allegation and consequently contravened that standard. The substantiated conduct is serious and I am satisfied that it has ended the QAS’s trust and confidence in Mr Loveridge as an employee of the QAS. For these reasons, Mr Loveridge’s dismissal was proportionate to the conduct.

Mr Loveridge’s termination was neither ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’ and his application to be reinstated was dismissed.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.