Legal practitioners’ negligence liability for claim investigation and advice

Nigam v Harm (No 2) [2011] WASCA 221, Western Australia Court of Appeal, 18 October 2011

The difficulty of establishing causation in medical negligence cases : two recent Australian decisions

This editorial on health and guardianship law provides an overview of the causation issues that precluded the recovery of two medical negligence claims in the cases of Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19 and Waller v James [2013] NSWSC 497.

Failure to administer a drug and causation

Case note on King v Western Sydney Local Health Network In King v Western Sydney Local Health Network [2013] NSWCA 162 the appellant sought damages for the severe physical and intellectual disability she suffered as a result of foetal varicella syndrome (FVS) caused by her mother contracting varicella (chickenpox) in the second trimester of her pregnancy. The mother had been exposed to the virus and sought advice from a doctor at Blacktown Hospital as she had not had the virus herself and therefore did not possess immunity. In such circumstances at the time, the standard medical practice was to offer the mother varicellazoster immunoglobulin (VZIG) to boost her defence to the virus. The appellant’s mother however was not offered this treatment and contracted chickenpox resulting the appellant’s condition...

Liability in negligence and the failure to disclose multiple risks in surgery : I would have been willing to run the risk

It has been 21 years since the decision in Rogers v Whitaker and the legal principles concerning informed consent and liability for negligence are still strongly grounded in this landmark High Court decision. This paper considers more recent developments in the law concerning the failure to disclose inherent risks in medical procedures, focusing on the decision in Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19. In this case, the appellant underwent a surgical procedure that carried a number of risks. The surgery itself was not performed in a sub-standard way, but the surgeon failed to disclose two risks to the patient, a failure that constituted a breach of the surgeon’s duty of care in negligence. One of the undisclosed risks was considered to be less serious than the other, and this lesser risk eventuated causing injury to the appellant. The more serious risk did not eventuate, but the appellant argued that if the more serious risk had been disclosed, he would have avoided his injuries completely because he would have refused to undergo the procedure. Liability was disputed by the surgeon, with particular reference to causation principles. The High Court of Australia held that the appellant should not be compensated for harm that resulted from a risk he would have been willing to run. We examine the policy reasons underpinning the law of negligence in this specific context and consider some of the issues raised by this unusual case. We question whether some of the judicial reasoning adopted in this case, represents a significant shift in traditional causation principles.

Medical negligence, causation and liability for non-disclosure of risk : a post-wallace framework and critique

Through an examination of Wallace v Kam, this article considers and evaluates the law of causation in the specific context of a medical practitioner’s duty to provide information to patients concerning material risks of treatment. To supply a contextual background for the analysis which follows, Part II summarises the basic principles of causation law, while Part III provides an overview of the case and the reasoning adopted in the decisions at first instance and on appeal. With particular emphasis upon the reasoning in the courts of appeal, Part IV then examines the implications of the case in the context of other jurisprudence in this field and, in so doing, provides a framework for a structured consideration of causation issues in future non-disclosure cases under the Australian civil liability legislation. As will become clear, Wallace was fundamentally decided on the basis of policy reasoning centred upon the purpose behind the legal duty violated. Although the plurality in Rogers v Whitaker rejected the utility of expressions such as ‘the patient’s right of self-determination’ in this context, some Australian jurisprudence may be thought to frame the practitioner’s duty to warn in terms of promoting a patient’s autonomy, or right to decide whether to submit to treatment proposed. Accordingly, the impact of Wallace upon the protection of this right, and the interrelation between it and the duty to warn’s purpose, is investigated. The analysis in Part IV also evaluates the courts’ reasoning in Wallace by questioning the extent to which Wallace’s approach to liability and causal connection in non-disclosure of risk cases: depends upon the nature and classification of the risk(s) in question; and can be reconciled with the way in which patients make decisions. Finally, Part V adopts a comparative approach by considering whether the same decision might be reached if Wallace was determined according to English law.

What’s law got to do with it?: Medical negligence, causation and the use of policy

In a medical negligence context, and under the causation provisions enacted pursuant to Civil Liability Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions, the normative concept of “scope of liability” requires a consideration of whether or not and why a medical practitioner should be responsible for a patient’s harm. As such, it places a limit on the extent to which practitioners are deemed liable for a breach of the duty of care owed by them, in circumstances where a legal factual connection between that breach and the causation of a patient’s harm has already been shown. It has been said that a determination of causation requires ‘the identification and articulation of an evaluative judgement by reference to “the purposes and policy of the relevant part of the law”’: Wallace v Kam (2013) 297 ALR 383, 388. Accordingly, one of the normative factors falling within scope of liability is an examination of the content and purpose of the rule or duty of care violated – that is, its underlying policy and whether this supports an attribution of legal responsibility upon a practitioner. In this context, and with reference to recent jurisprudence, this paper considers: the policy relevant to a practitioner’s duty of care in each of the areas of diagnosis, treatment and advice; how this has been used to determine an appropriate scope of liability for the purpose of the causation inquiry in medical negligence claims; and whether such an approach is problematic for medical standards or decision-making.

Comparison of 3D finite element analysis derived stiffness and BMD to determine the failure load of the excised proximal femur

Introduction: Bone mineral density (BMD) is currently the preferred surrogate for bone strength in clinical practice. Finite element analysis (FEA) is a computer simulation technique that can predict the deformation of a structure when a load is applied, providing a measure of stiffness (Nmm−1). Finite element analysis of X-ray images (3D-FEXI) is a FEA technique whose analysis is derived froma single 2D radiographic image. Methods: 18 excised human femora had previously been quantitative computed tomography scanned, from which 2D BMD-equivalent radiographic images were derived, and mechanically tested to failure in a stance-loading configuration. A 3D proximal femur shape was generated from each 2D radiographic image and used to construct 3D-FEA models. Results: The coefficient of determination (R2%) to predict failure load was 54.5% for BMD and 80.4% for 3D-FEXI. Conclusions: This ex vivo study demonstrates that 3D-FEXI derived from a conventional 2D radiographic image has the potential to significantly increase the accuracy of failure load assessment of the proximal femur compared with that currently achieved with BMD. This approach may be readily extended to routine clinical BMD images derived by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Crown Copyright © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IPEM. All rights reserved

Comparison of 3D finite element analysis derived stiffness and BMD to determine the failure load of the excised proximal femur

Bone mineral density (BMD) is currently the preferred surrogate for bone strength in clinical practice. Finite element analysis (FEA) is a computer simulation technique that can predict the deformation of a structure when a load is applied, providing a measure of stiffness (N mm− 1). Finite element analysis of X-ray images (3D-FEXI) is a FEA technique whose analysis is derived from a single 2D radiographic image. This ex-vivo study demonstrates that 3D-FEXI derived from a conventional 2D radiographic image has the potential to significantly increase the accuracy of failure load assessment of the proximal femur compared with that currently achieved with BMD.

Informed consent : the review of the law of negligence and the utility of reference to NHMRC guidelines

Although rarely referred to in litigation in the years that have followed the Ipp Review Report, there may well be some merit in more frequent judicial reference to the NHMRC guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients 2004.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. The reversal of the onus of proof through the obvious risk sections has attempted to extend the scope of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. There is no liability for the materialisation of an inherent risk. Presumptions and mandatory reductions for contributory negligence have attempted to reduce the liability of defendants. It is now possible for reductions of 100% for contributory negligence. Apologies can be made with no admission of legal liability to encourage them being made and thereby reduce the number of actions being commenced. The peer acceptance defence has been introduced and enacted by legislation. There is protection for good samaritans even though the Ipp Report recommended against such protection. Limitation periods have been amended. Provisions relating to mental harm have been introduced re-instating the requirement of normal fortitude and direct perception. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages through thresholds and caps which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

A lawyer's duty of care : beware the failure to advise of contingencies and foreseeable risks

It is trite law that a lawyer owes their client a duty of care requiring the lawyer to take reasonable steps to avoid their client suffering foreseeable economiic loss: Hawkins v Clayton. In the context of a property transaction this will include a duty to warn the client of anything that is unusual or anything which may affect the client obtaining the full benefit of the contract entered into: Macindoe v Parbery.

Medical negligence, causation and 'exceptional cases' under the civil liability legislation

Under the civil liability legislation enacted in most Australian jurisdictions, factual causation will be established if, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant can prove that the defendant's negligence was 'a necessary condition of the occurrence of the [claimant's] harm'. Causation will then be satisfied by showing that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach of their duty of care. However, in an exceptional or appropriate case, sub-section 2 of the legislation provides that if the 'but for' test is not met, factual causation may instead be determined in accordance with other 'established principles'. In such a case, 'the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed' on the negligent party.