NEW SOUTH WALES COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT FOR HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION V/S NATHAN KAI WEI PANG CASE

Australia, Sept. 3 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 4:

1. This matter concerns an application for disciplinary findings and orders brought by the Health Care Complaints Commission ("the Commission") against Nathan Kai Wei Pang, a nurse, under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) ("the National Law").

2. On 29 April 2025 in Stage 1 of the proceedings the Tribunal determined that Mr Pang was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct under s 139B(1)(a) and (l), and s 139E respectively of the National Law: Health Care Complaints Commission v Pang [2025] NSWCATOD 46.

3. The proceedings were adjourned to consider what protective and consequential orders should be made following those conclusions. This is the Stage 2 reasons for decision addressing that issue.

4. The factual background to the matter is set out in detail in our Stage 1 reasons for decision. These Stage 2 reasons are to be read in conjunction with those in Stage 1. These reasons also assume familiarity with the facts and circumstances of the complaints that led to the making of the Stage 1 Tribunal's findings and reasons for decision. In this decision we will briefly refer to the facts to give context to these reasons. However these references are intended to be a summary of the Tribunal's earlier factual findings and are not intended to qualify or change them.

5. On 29 January 2019 Mr Pang commenced employment with the Sydney Children's Hospital Network (SCHN) as a first-year registered nurse (transition program). Mr Pang was initially employed in a ward at a Children's Hospital (the Hospital), on a 12-month temporary contract. On conclusion of the transition program Mr Pang was employed in the same ward in a permanent full-time capacity. The Complaint brought by the Commission concerned conduct by Mr Pang towards Patient A, an adolescent male inpatient at the Hospital and whom at the relevant time was 16 years old.

6. In Stage 1 we found that during a wound inspection of Patient A's groin area Mr Pang touched Patient A's penis without consent. The circumstances surrounding Mr Pang's reasons for touching Patient A's penis was because he wanted to better visualise Patient A's wound site. Mr Pang thought he saw potential rebleeding at the wound site. This belief was erroneous. We found that instead of touching Patient A's penis Mr Pang had a number of other viable and practical clinical options available to him to obtain a better visual of the wound site. Options which he should have taken.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1985e99eba27da91be1ff95f)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.