Skip to main content

Anaesthetist dismissed for drinking on the job allowed to return to work

An anaesthetist who was dismissed for being intoxicated on the job has been cleared to return to work.

Dr Michal Petr left the operating theatre when his patient was still unconscious and without transferring the job to another co-worker at Wollongong Hospital in May 2016.

The 49-year-old was later discovered intoxicated in a locked hospital room after he consumed six to eight drinks.

Dr Petr’s position as a visiting medical officer at Wollongong Hospital was terminated, but he lodged a protest under a legal provision that gives practitioners the right of appeal to the minister.

The committee of review found Dr Petr should be re-employed as an anaesthetist - with the condition of a daily breath test – and that he is “unlikely” to relapse, according to Fairfax Media.

Dr Petr's appeal to return to work was supported by many of his anaesthesia co-workers and his personal psychiatrist who argued that he had changed his ways.

He has now been able to find a job at Shellharbour Private Hospital in the pre-admissions clinic.

Five years prior to this incident, Dr Petr was caught driving to work with a blood alcohol level more than three times over the legal limit.

Conditions imposed at the time to return to work included that he not consume alcohol at all, and that he undergo urine testing for alcohol twice a week.

However, he started drinking again in January 2016 leading to the May 20 incident which prompted the medical council to impose more stringent conditions on his licence.

NSW Minister for Health Brad Hazzard said he did not share the committee's conclusion Dr Petr had changed.

"As the Minister for Health, my primary concern is about ensuring that patients are kept safe," Hazzard said.

"It's a decision made by a review committee under the legislation and is not one I would have made.

“Hopefully we will be working with the doctor to have him address his issues before he seeks to come back to work."

The only way to overturn the committee's decision is through the Supreme Court, however this is not under consideration.

A statement issued by the Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District chief executive Margot Mains said: ‘’Before he resumes any duties as a VMO, the district would need to be satisfied that Dr Petr will meet the conditions required of him to practice, and any other additional conditions the district may apply following a full clinical risk assessment.’’

Originally published at - http://www.hcamag.com/hr-news/anaesthetist-dismissed-for-drinking-on-the-job-allowed-to-return-to-work-237145.aspx

AWPTI - workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide


Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations

www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/
http://awpti.com.au/training/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...

Lorna Jane vindicated after two-year, $570,000 bullying case

Legal experts are urging businesses to train their staff in up-to-date social media policies this year, after activewear brand Lorna Jane won a two-year legal battle in November against a former employee who claimed the company was responsible for the psychiatric impacts of bullying at work. Former Brisbane store manager Amy Robinson filed a legal claim against Lorna Jane in 2015, seeking $570,000 in damages. The former manager claimed Lorna Jane was negligent and should be held responsible for her being bullied by a learning and development manager at the company, which led to psychiatric illness and a loss of employment and future employability. The company came out swinging against the claims early on,   posting a later-deleted Facebook post in 2015 defending itself against the claims  and saying it had been “very disappointed” by what had been reported in the media about the case. The claims included that Robinson was bullied and called a variety of names while...

Stop-bullying application rejected

An employee who claimed his new team leader micromanaged and bullied him has had his stop-bullying application rejected, after the Fair Work Commission found her behaviour "abrupt" but not repeated or unreasonable. The Bunnings Warehouse employee claimed that in May 2016 the new team leader asked him about his face – the left side of his face "droops" and he is unable to move his left arm – which he found "deeply disrespectful and hurtful". A few weeks later, the team leader on two occasions confronted him and questioned why he was in different sections of the store, he told the Commission, noting he believed he was being singled out and treated differently from colleagues. He contacted the store manager to discuss the issue but was told she was too busy to speak with him, and he subsequently took two days off because of work-related stress. The employee claimed that when he returned to work, the employer suspended him but didn't tell him wh...