Minter Ellison Health News 12 June 2013
Minter Ellison Health News 12 June 2013
Minter Ellison Health News 12 June 2013
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Minter</strong> <strong>Ellison</strong> <strong>Health</strong> <strong>News</strong><br />
<strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
Cases<br />
New South Wales<br />
Rasmussen and South Western Sydney Local <strong>Health</strong> District [<strong>2013</strong>] NSWSC<br />
656 (29 May <strong>2013</strong>)<br />
Damages awarded for nervous shock following baby son’s death<br />
Ms Vanessa Rasmussen (plaintiff) was born on 3 December 1981. She became pregnant<br />
with Kaden in December 2006. Kaden was born on 18 August 2007 at Liverpool<br />
Hospital, South Western Sydney Local <strong>Health</strong> District (defendant). There were<br />
complications that resulted in brain damage. Kaden was ventilated and transferred to<br />
the intensive care unit. Four days later, on 22 August 2007, Ms Rasmussen and her<br />
husband decided to withdraw Kaden’s ventilation and he subsequently passed away.<br />
This decision was ‘heart wrenching, albeit a merciful and necessary one’.<br />
Ms Rasmussen declined the Hospital’s offer of counselling because she could not bring<br />
herself to return there. Liverpool Hospital admitted liability and accepts that Ms<br />
Rasmussen has suffered recognisable psychiatric injury due to Kaden’s death. Ms<br />
Rasmussen applied to the NSW Supreme Court (the Court) claiming damages for the<br />
nervous shock caused by Kaden’s death, including non-economic loss, loss of earning<br />
capacity, damages for domestic care and assistance and treatment expenses.<br />
Ms Rasmussen completed a Diploma in Hospitality Management from Wollongong TAFE.<br />
In 2001, she began work at Revesby Pizza Hut as an assistant manager and by 2005<br />
she was the manager of the Jannali Pizza Hut restaurant. By this time her gross annual<br />
earnings were A$37,000. At the time of becoming pregnant she was working at the<br />
Jannali Pizza Hut and earning A$41,000 per annum. Ms Rasmussen planned to resign<br />
from work when Kaden was born and return to full-time work when he was six months<br />
old.<br />
In February 2005, she began living with Bradley Rasmussen, whom she later married.<br />
At that time, Mr Rasmussen was an enlisted soldier and, whilst he was away on active<br />
service, Ms Rasmussen did the house cleaning, gardening and mowing.<br />
The Court heard evidence regarding Ms Rasmussen’s mental state, working situation<br />
and home life since the death of Kaden. Ms Rasmussen could not return to work after<br />
Kaden’s death and decided to make a complete career change. However, after gaining<br />
employment at Flight Centre in 2007, she was unable to concentrate or cope and<br />
resigned. She was unable to complete domestic tasks at home due to her mental state.<br />
Mr Rasmussen decided to leave the army and work as a grader operator in Wollongong<br />
because of his wife’s inability to cope.
2 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
Ms Rasmussen was successful in gaining employment at an ANZ Bank Branch in 2010.<br />
However, her work performance is compromised by her anxiety and stresses.<br />
Ms Rasmussen has since had two daughters born in 2010 and 20<strong>12</strong>. She suffered from<br />
post-natal depression after the birth of her second daughter. This was contributed, in<br />
part, by the trauma she suffered after Kaden’s death. She has completed a Bachelor of<br />
Arts Degree at Southern Cross University by correspondence.<br />
Expert psychiatric evidence concluded that Ms Rasmussen has suffered an anxiety<br />
disorder and a pathological grief reaction, which is a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness’<br />
under section 31 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Her symptoms will improve with<br />
treatment and the passage of time.<br />
In assessing damages, the Court accepted that Kaden’s death had transformed Ms<br />
Rasmussen’s life significantly. The births and nurturing of her two daughters had been<br />
affected by the loss of Kaden. Ms Rasmussen is overly concerned and anxious for their<br />
welfare. ‘The grief she suffers is lifelong.’ 1<br />
Ms Rasmussen’s work enthusiasm has been hindered by constant fears of job loss,<br />
concerns about whether she is performing in her job to a satisfactory standard and<br />
anxiety for the care of her children whilst she is at work. Ms Rasmussen is prone to<br />
anxiety and emotional liability when she encounters boys who would have been Kaden’s<br />
contemporaries.<br />
The Court noted Ms Rasmussen's abilities to obtain a degree, look after her children and<br />
work part-time, all demonstrating her capabilities to concentrate and perform. It<br />
showed a motivation to return to normal functioning.<br />
The Court awarded judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of A$366,903.60.<br />
Click here for the full decision<br />
Victoria<br />
Inquest into the death of Corey Irving Wright (22 May <strong>2013</strong>)<br />
Coroner finds the lack of a formal mental health status review over one month<br />
was not causally related to the suicide of an involuntary psychiatric patient<br />
Mr Wright was 41 years of age and was the oldest of five children. He grew up in<br />
children’s homes and in foster care after his father left when he was young. Mr Wright’s<br />
mother, who suffered from schizophrenia, took her own life in 1998. Mr Wright kept in<br />
contact with his sister, Freyja De Losa, and was living with his brother, Jason Wright,<br />
and housemate, Martin Powell, at the time of his death.<br />
Mr Wright had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, polysubstance abuse (marijuana,<br />
amphetamine and heroin) and self harm. He had a number of admissions to Mental<br />
<strong>Health</strong> Services, including an admission to Thomas Embling Hospital due to an incident<br />
involving the destruction of property and theft in 2005. Since this time he had been<br />
treated as an involuntary psychiatric patient, subject to a community treatment order<br />
(CTO) under the supervision of Moreland Continuing Care Team (CCT), a unit of the<br />
North West Area Mental <strong>Health</strong> Service. He was receiving fortnightly depot injections of<br />
risperdal consta since 2005.<br />
Mr Wright did not believe he was suffering from a mental illness and would often discuss<br />
ceasing his medications due to the number of side effects he was experiencing,<br />
including drowsiness, upset stomach, skin rashes and sweating. On 16 August 2006, Dr<br />
Ana Lusicic (psychiatry registrar) and Ms Danielle Ashley (case manager) conducted a<br />
psychiatric review of Mr Wright. Dr Lusicic and Ms Ashley reported him to be engrossed<br />
1 At [52], Adamson J
3 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
with his medication and not wanting to be on a CTO. He lacked insight into his illness<br />
but denied any plans to harm himself or others.<br />
Mr Wright did not attend his next scheduled appointment on 22 August 2006. Medical<br />
records show that Dr Lusicic called Jason Wright to enquire of his brother’s whereabouts.<br />
Jason advised that Mr Wright did not feel well. When Dr Lusicic did speak with Mr Wright<br />
he agreed to attend on 23 August 2006. However, he failed to attend this appointment<br />
also. Dr Lusicic again telephoned Mr Wright and was informed that he was unwell due<br />
to the medication. Jason also advised Dr Lusicic that Mr Wright wanted to change<br />
doctors to one closer to his residential address in Frankston North. Dr Lusicic informed<br />
Mr Wright that due to his CTO a request for change needed to be in writing from his<br />
treating doctor.<br />
Mr Powell attended a Mental <strong>Health</strong> Review Board hearing with Mr Wright on 25 August<br />
2006 to confirm his involuntary status. He failed to attend a scheduled psychiatric<br />
review on 1 September 2006, this was rescheduled for 21 September 2006. However,<br />
he did attend a clinic appointment to receive his depot medications on 29 August and 13<br />
September 2006.<br />
Jason and Mr Powell reported seeing Mr Wright on the morning of 15 September 2006<br />
and did not notice any unusual behaviour. Between 11:00am and <strong>12</strong>:00pm, Mr Wright<br />
left the house with Jason’s bike. At <strong>12</strong>:34pm, a short distance from Kananook Railway<br />
Station, Mr Wright was seen to stand in the middle of the train track in the path of an<br />
oncoming train. Mr Wright was hit by the train and suffered fatal injuries. Jason’s bike<br />
was found a short distance away with Mr Powell’s phone numbers on a hand written<br />
note that was found in the gear cogs of the bike’s back wheel.<br />
At inquest, the Coroner accepted evidence from Mr Wright’s Total Care Progress Notes<br />
that showed he regularly missed scheduled appointments and, as a result, full mental<br />
status assessments were not performed at regular periods. A period of approximately<br />
one month had elapsed since his review with Dr Lusicic and Ms Ashley on 16 August<br />
2006 until his death on 15 September 2006.<br />
The Coroner heard evidence form Dr Jagadheesen, supervising consultant psychiatrist,<br />
at Moreland CCT. Dr Jagadheesen would only see clients under the care of the Mental<br />
<strong>Health</strong> team if he was referred to do so by the clinicians or if the progress notes<br />
indicated it was necessary. Dr Jagadheesen did not consider Mr Wright’s failure to<br />
attend clinic appointments as overly concerning. He was satisfied that Mr Wright had<br />
attended for his depot injections and was confident that Registered Psychiatric Nurses<br />
(RPN) would notify Mr Wright’s case managers or Dr Lusicic if they had any concerns.<br />
Furthermore, Dr Jagadheesen did not feel it necessary to revoke Mr Wright’s CTO and<br />
have him admitted to a psychiatric ward because of his failure to attend scheduled<br />
appoints. Dr Jagadheesen considered this ‘unnecessarily restrictive’. Dr Jagadheesen<br />
was unaware that Mr Wright had wanted to be transferred to a Mental <strong>Health</strong> Service<br />
closer to Frankston. He confirmed that this was generally an easy process that could be<br />
initiated by a request from a medical practitioner or the North West Area Mental <strong>Health</strong><br />
Service.<br />
The Coroner found the Total Care Progress Notes to be legible and sufficiently<br />
informative to reflect the endeavours of Moreland CCT to engage with, treat and<br />
supervise Mr Wright. However, the Coroner accepted that Mr Wright never fully engaged<br />
or developed a rapport with his mental health treatment team. The Coroner was not<br />
critical of the treating mental health team for this lack of rapport but attributed it to Mr<br />
Wright’s lack of insight into his own mental health and his requirement for ongoing<br />
treatment.<br />
There was no evidence to suggest Mr Wright had experienced an increase in his suicidal<br />
ideations. Furthermore, other evidence, including the lack of any discussion concerning
4 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
the outcome of the Mental <strong>Health</strong> Review Board, the location of his mental health<br />
providers or the lack of a formal mental status review over one month was not found to<br />
be causally related to Mr Wright’s decision to take his own life.<br />
The Coroner concluded that Mr Wright’s mental health care was reasonable and<br />
appropriate in the circumstances.<br />
Click here for the findings<br />
Western Australia<br />
LS and Mental <strong>Health</strong> Review Board [<strong>2013</strong>] WASCA <strong>12</strong>8 (24 May <strong>2013</strong>)<br />
Court's judgement that the Mental <strong>Health</strong> Review Board does not have the<br />
power to carry out a review of an involuntary patient order after the person<br />
has ceased to be an involuntary patient<br />
LS (appellant) had a long standing history of mental illness. On 11 May 2011, Dr L made<br />
a Community Treatment Order (CTO) for LS and on 13 May 2011, revoked the CTO and<br />
ordered that LS be detained in an authorised hospital as an involuntary patient under<br />
section 70(1) of the Mental <strong>Health</strong> Act 1996 (WA) (MH Act).<br />
On 10 <strong>June</strong> 2011, Dr L ordered LS to continue to be detained under an involuntary<br />
treatment order. On <strong>12</strong> July 2011, the Mental <strong>Health</strong> Review Board (the Board) decided,<br />
under section 138 of the MH Act, to continue the involuntary order made by Dr L and on<br />
22 July 2011, LS commenced proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal (the<br />
Tribunal) for review of the Board’s decision.<br />
On 2 September 2011, the Board conducted a hearing to review the CTO of the 15<br />
August 2011. The Board concluded that LS was no longer an involuntary patient within<br />
the terms of the MH Act. On the 6 September 2011, the Tribunal dismissed LS’s<br />
application made on 22 July 2011 for review of the Board’s decision because the<br />
Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to review a decision of the Board where LS was no<br />
longer an involuntary patient. 2<br />
LS made an appeal in the WA Supreme Court of Appeal (the Court) against the<br />
Tribunal’s order. LS relied on three grounds for appeal, these were:<br />
1. The Tribunal erred in concluding that a review of an order of the Board under<br />
section 148A of the MH Act ‘falls away’ when the subject of the review ceases to be<br />
an involuntary patient.<br />
2. The Tribunal made an error when it concluded that the powers of the Board when it<br />
carries out reviews and periodic reviews of involuntary patient orders under<br />
sections 138, 139 and 142 of the MH Act ‘falls away’ when the subject ceases to be<br />
an involuntary patient; and<br />
3. The Tribunal erred when it treated the conditions under sections 138(3) and 139(2)<br />
of the MH Act as being functions and discretions of the Board to be exercised by the<br />
Tribunal under sections 29 (Tribunal’s powers in Review Jurisdiction) of The State<br />
Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (the SAT Act).<br />
The Court considered relevant sections of the MH Act, including the provisions for<br />
involuntary patient orders, the powers of the Board, applications to the Tribunal and the<br />
jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal under The State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004<br />
(WA) (SAT Act).<br />
The Court observed the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction with regard to pervious case<br />
authorities. In particular, the Court noted that the Tribunal is required to give attention<br />
2 See LS and Mental <strong>Health</strong> Review Board [20<strong>12</strong>] WASAT 76 (20 April 20<strong>12</strong>)
5 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
to the situation existing at the time of the decision under review. 3 Furthermore, the<br />
powers of the Tribunal may be broader than the original decision maker but the task of<br />
the Tribunal is to reconsider what the original decision maker did. The Court found<br />
nothing in the SAT Act that enabled the Tribunal to deal with a matter that is ‘different<br />
in essence’ from what was before the original decision-maker. 4<br />
The Court dismissed the first ground for appeal because the Tribunal was unable to<br />
undertake its statutory power as LS had ceased to be an involuntary patient at that time.<br />
The Tribunal did not lack jurisdiction, but used its powers under section 47(1)(a) of the<br />
SAT Act to dismiss the proceeding.<br />
The Court considered the second ground of LS’s appeal and held that the Board's power<br />
to review under section 138 (and sections 139 and 142) is dependent upon the person<br />
concerned being an involuntary patient at that time. The provision is forward-looking in<br />
that it requires the Board to consider if the involuntary order at the time ‘should<br />
continue to have effect’. It is not required to consider whether a past decision is correct<br />
or not.<br />
In making the decision, the Board is to have regard to the person’s psychiatric and<br />
medical history at that point in time. The Board is to then determine the decision for the<br />
future, taking into account the best care and treatment that least interferes with the<br />
person’s rights and dignity. 5 In addition, the Court concluded that section 144 MH Act<br />
where the Board may review an involuntary case at any time, does not confer any<br />
power on the Board to consider the validity of previous involuntary patient orders.<br />
In relation to the third ground of appeal, the Court held that reviews under sections 138<br />
and 139 of the MH Act and section 29(1) of the SAT Act are ‘functions’ of the Board as<br />
defined in section 5 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA). ‘Function’ is defined in the<br />
Interpretation Act 1984 as ‘powers, duties, responsibilities, authorities and jurisdictions.’<br />
The Court dismissed the appeal.<br />
Click here for the full decision<br />
New Zealand<br />
Grobler and Accident Compensation Corporation [<strong>2013</strong>] NZACC 115 (24 April<br />
<strong>2013</strong>)<br />
A recent judgment of the District Court considered whether delays during labour caused<br />
a baby to suffer a ‘treatment injury’ for the purposes of the Injury Prevention,<br />
Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (the Act), and thus rendered the baby<br />
eligible for cover from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).<br />
In September 2009, after a series of complications, Carla Grobler-Barrington (Ms G)<br />
gave birth to Amelia Grobler-Barrington (Amelia). On birth, Amelia was diagnosed with<br />
hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), a condition affecting brain functioning caused<br />
by the brain being deprived of oxygen during birth. The question before the court was<br />
whether Amelia’s condition was caused by the treatment of Ms G during labour.<br />
This judgment relates to a recent decision of the <strong>Health</strong> and Disability Commissioner<br />
that was reported in this publication in May <strong>2013</strong>. That decision criticised the conduct of<br />
Ms G’s midwife prior to the arrival of Ms G at hospital. This judgment focuses on the<br />
actions of hospital staff after Ms G’s arrival at hospital.<br />
3 S 27(2) SAT Act and see <strong>Health</strong> Reports of Australasia Pty Ltd v Western Australian<br />
Planning Commission [2007] WASAT 60<br />
4 s29(9) SAT Act<br />
5 s5 and s6(2) MH Act
6 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
Ms G went into labour on 11 September 2009 at about 9:00pm, at about which time she<br />
was taken to the hospital by her midwife. During the night, Ms G developed a fever and<br />
then later, during an examination, her membranes ruptured with evidence of fresh<br />
meconium. This was later determined to be caused by chorioamnionitis, a bacterial<br />
infection in the membranes of the womb.<br />
At 7:40am, an obstetrician determined that an attempt should be made to deliver<br />
Amelia vaginally. Ms G attempted to give birth vaginally a number of times, but Amelia<br />
refused to rotate to the correct position for delivery. At 8:30am, the obstetrician<br />
determined that Amelia could not be delivered vaginally and that hospital staff would<br />
need to perform a caesarean section.<br />
Further issues arose during the caesarean section. The anaesthetic initially failed to<br />
work and so hospital staff decided to use general anaesthetic. The hospital staff then<br />
had difficulties inserting a tube into Ms G’s throat to maintain an open airway. Ms G had<br />
had the same problem in a previous surgery, but this was not brought to the attention<br />
of hospital staff.<br />
After birth, Amelia had seizures and was diagnosed with HIE. The Court had to consider<br />
whether Amelia’s HIE could be attributed to the underlying disease of chorioamnionitis<br />
or the hospital staff’s treatment of Ms G.<br />
Experts largely agreed that it was unlikely that the delay caused by issues with the<br />
anaesthetic would have aggravated the HIE substantially. However, they determined<br />
that it was more likely that the 20-minute delay caused by the obstetrician’s decision to<br />
attempt a vaginal birth exacerbated the HIE (although this was disputed by one expert).<br />
The judge weighed the expert evidence and considered it more likely than not that the<br />
treatment had been the cause of the injury. The delay would have caused a much<br />
higher risk of HIE. The judge reasoned that this high risk meant it was likely that the<br />
delay was responsible for the injury.<br />
The judge concluded that Amelia’s condition was a treatment injury under the Act, with<br />
Amelia being provided cover accordingly.<br />
Click here for the full decision<br />
Legislation<br />
Commonwealth<br />
Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Fees and Charges) Regulation<br />
<strong>2013</strong> No. 94 (Cth)<br />
The Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Fees and Charges) Regulation <strong>2013</strong> No.<br />
94 (Cth) amends the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Regulations 1990 No. 395 (Cth).<br />
According to the Explanatory Statement, purpose of the amending Regulation is to<br />
increase the following fees by 2.9 %, subject to the Therapeutic Goods Administration's<br />
rounding policy, for the <strong>2013</strong>-14 financial year:<br />
(a) annual charges relating to the registration, listing or inclusion of therapeutic goods<br />
in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, including registered goods, listed goods,<br />
biological and medical devices; and<br />
(b) annual charges relating to manufacturing licenses. The amending Regulation also<br />
replaces the reference to 'A$85,900' in the note to r. 3(3) of the principal Regulations<br />
with a reference to 'A$88,400'.
7 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
The amending Regulations will commence on 1 July <strong>2013</strong>.<br />
Click here for the Bill<br />
Private <strong>Health</strong> Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill <strong>2013</strong><br />
(Cth)<br />
The Private <strong>Health</strong> Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill <strong>2013</strong> was<br />
passed by the House of Representatives on 4 <strong>June</strong> without amendment and now moves<br />
to the Senate. The Bill proposes to implement the Government's 20<strong>12</strong>-13 MYEFO<br />
announcement that from 1 April 2014, the premium to which the Private <strong>Health</strong><br />
Insurance Rebate is applied will move in line with CPI or the commercial premium<br />
increase, whichever is lower.<br />
Click here for the Bill<br />
Private <strong>Health</strong> Insurance Amendment (Lifetime <strong>Health</strong> Cover Loading and<br />
Other Measures) Bill 20<strong>12</strong> (Cth)<br />
The Private <strong>Health</strong> Insurance Amendment (Lifetime <strong>Health</strong> Cover Loading and Other<br />
Measures) Bill 20<strong>12</strong> was passed by the House of Representatives on 4 <strong>June</strong> without<br />
amendment and now moves to the Senate. It proposes to amend the Private <strong>Health</strong><br />
Insurance Act 2007 and make minor consequential amendments to the ITAA 1936, ITAA<br />
1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953.<br />
The Bill provides for 2 categories of amendments to the Private <strong>Health</strong> Insurance Act:<br />
(i) it proposes to remove the rebate on private health insurance from the Lifetime<br />
<strong>Health</strong> Cover loading part of affected premiums; and<br />
(ii) from 1 July <strong>2013</strong>, claiming the rebate through a Department of Human Services<br />
Service Centre under the Incentive Payments Scheme will cease.<br />
Click here for the Bill<br />
Queensland<br />
<strong>Health</strong> Obudsman Bill <strong>2013</strong> (Qld)<br />
The <strong>Health</strong> Ombudsman Bill <strong>2013</strong> (Qld) was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on<br />
4 <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong>.<br />
According to the Explanatory Notes, the objectives of the Bill are to protect the health<br />
and safety of the public, promote professional, safe and competent practice by health<br />
practitioners, promote high standards of service delivery by health service organisations,<br />
and maintain public confidence in the management of complaints and other matters<br />
relating to the provision of health services.<br />
Specifically, the Bill proposes to:<br />
(a) establish a new system to allow the <strong>Health</strong> Ombudsman to manage health<br />
complaints in Queensland, thereby replacing the split complaints procedure in place<br />
between <strong>Health</strong> Quality and Complaints Commission and the national health practitioner<br />
registration boards;<br />
(b) prescribe the <strong>Health</strong> Ombudsman with various powers, including the power to take<br />
immediate action to suspend or place conditions on a health practitioner's registration<br />
where there is a serious risk to the public;<br />
(c) make provision for the establishment and appointment of panels or a committee of<br />
persons to facilitate the functions of the <strong>Health</strong> Ombudsman;
8 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
(d) prescribe various functions on the <strong>Health</strong> Ombudsman, including to identify any deal<br />
with health service issues through investigations and other relevant action, and to<br />
receive and deal with health service complaints;<br />
(e) allow interim orders to be issued so restrict a health practitioner from practising<br />
where there is a serious risk to the public; and<br />
(f) make consequential and transitional amendments, including for the disclosure of<br />
confidential information.<br />
Click here for the Bill<br />
<strong>News</strong><br />
General <strong>Health</strong><br />
Organ and Tissue Authority Community Awareness grants now available<br />
Parliamentary Secretary for <strong>Health</strong> and Ageing Shayne Neumann has announced the<br />
availability of A$463,000 in community awareness grants to support community-based<br />
activities promoting organ and tissue donation.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Income up, but mental illness costing A$190b a year<br />
The cost of mental illness to Australia's collective wellbeing has reached A$190 billion a<br />
year - equivalent to about <strong>12</strong> per cent of the economy's annual output.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Women wrongly diagnosed after screening problems<br />
A potential legal action is to be launched into a mishandled transfer from analogue to<br />
digital imaging at BreastScreen South Australia which allegedly resulted in more than<br />
500 women being recalled for reassessment and 72 women told they had been wrongly<br />
diagnosed as cancer-free.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
New melanoma drug treatment a 'game-changer'<br />
Australian cancer patients will soon be able to test a potentially 'game-changing'<br />
melanoma treatment that could extend their lives for years.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
AMA raises concerns about decision of Optometry Board turning a blind eye to<br />
quality patient health care<br />
AMA President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said that, in the interests of quality patient care,<br />
the Optometry Board of Australia must reverse its unilateral decision to allow<br />
optometrists to independently treat patients with chronic glaucoma without first making<br />
contact with an ophthalmologist.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Get some man therapy<br />
The Federal Government and beyondblue have teamed up in an unconventional new<br />
mental health campaign called 'Man Therapy' designed to battle depression and anxiety<br />
in Australian men.<br />
Click here for the full story
9 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
Medical student and junior doctor groups join forces in push for intern places<br />
The AMA Council of Doctors in Training has brought together a coalition of peak medical<br />
student and junior doctor groups to implement a joint strategy to convince governments<br />
to provide sufficient internships to match the growing number of medical graduates.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Australian <strong>Health</strong> Survey: User's Guide<br />
Where you live can affect your likelihood of being a smoker or being overweight or<br />
obese, according to figures released by ABS. Louise Gates, Director of <strong>Health</strong> at ABS ,<br />
said the results from the Australian <strong>Health</strong> Survey give us an important insight into<br />
smoking rates and rates of overweight and obesity across Australia.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Government <strong>News</strong> & Policy<br />
Treasurer's Economic Note<br />
The Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer has released the latest Economic Note, which<br />
provides commentary on the National Accounts.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
<strong>Health</strong> A$219m over budget<br />
South Australia's Government has continued to overspend on health, despite former<br />
Treasurer Jack Snelling now being in charge of the portfolio.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Education expenses discussion paper leaves little room for discussion<br />
AMA President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said that the ‘Reform to deductions for education<br />
expenses' Discussion Paper released by Treasury outlines an inflexible Government<br />
position and provides little opportunity for affected professions to supply detailed<br />
submissions in support of tax deductions for genuine professional development.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Fiscal difficulty adds to case for faster privatisation<br />
The Queensland Government's second Budget is a reminder the Queensland Premier is<br />
trying to restore the State's finances the hard way.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Hospitals<br />
Hospital waiting times down, fewer surgeries performed<br />
The latest quarterly report on NSW hospitals has shown emergency department and<br />
elective surgery waiting times have fallen slightly but fewer surgeries are being<br />
performed.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Royal North Shore Hospital defends using operating theatres as storage rooms<br />
Royal North Shore Hospital has defended using four of its 18 operating theatres as<br />
storage rooms while moving patients to other hospitals for surgeries.<br />
Click here for the full story
10 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
Preventative <strong>Health</strong><br />
58% of dental spending out-of-pocket<br />
Individuals contributed 58% of the A$7.9 billion spent on dental services in Australia in<br />
2010-11, according to a report released by the Australian Institute of <strong>Health</strong> and<br />
Welfare.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Call to do more as gap widens in indigenous welfare statistics<br />
AMA President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said that the COAG Reform Council report,<br />
Indigenous Reform 2011-<strong>12</strong>: Comparing performance across Australia, shows that<br />
progress can be made on improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health with the<br />
right support and commitment.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Over 3.6 million women reached by cervical screening program<br />
More than 3.6 million women were screened by the National Cervical Screening Program<br />
in 2010-2011, according to a report released.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
E-cigarettes: health revolution or fresh pack of trouble<br />
Smokers who want to stub out the habit are turning in their millions to electronic<br />
cigarettes.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
New Zealand<br />
Scathing report into man's death<br />
The death of a mentally-ill man has highlighted serious shortcomings in care provided<br />
by a residential rehabilitation service.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Hamilton to end water fluoridation<br />
<strong>Health</strong> authorities say removing fluoride from Hamilton's water will result in at least half<br />
a million dollars of extra dental treatment costs in the city every year.<br />
Click here for the full story<br />
Caregivers' law irks lawyers<br />
The Law Society has described the Government's secrecy and rush to pass new laws<br />
around paying family members to care for severely disabled relatives as "alarming".<br />
Click here for the full story
11 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS <strong>12</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2013</strong><br />
Further Information<br />
Brisbane<br />
Shane Evans<br />
T +61 (0)7 3119 6450<br />
Melbourne<br />
Jacinda de Witts<br />
T +61 (0)3 8608 2276<br />
Lisa Ridd<br />
T +61 (0)3 8608 2278<br />
Sydney<br />
Lynne Peach<br />
T +61 (0)2 9921 4800<br />
Adelaide<br />
Chris Sweet<br />
T +61 (0)8 8233 5406<br />
Canberra<br />
Paul McGinness<br />
T +61 (0)2 6225 3257<br />
New Zealand<br />
Rachael Schmidt McCleave<br />
T +64 (0)4 498 50<strong>12</strong><br />
To email Australian lawyers use firstname.lastname@minterellison.com<br />
To email New Zealand lawyers use firstname.lastname@minterellison.co.nz<br />
Disclaimer<br />
The information contained in this update is intended as a guide only. Professional advice should be sought before applying any of the<br />
information to particular circumstances. While every reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this update, <strong>Minter</strong> <strong>Ellison</strong><br />
does not accept liability for any errors it may contain. This Update contains hyperlinks to websites. <strong>Minter</strong> <strong>Ellison</strong> does not claim any<br />
association with websites which are not clearly identified as <strong>Minter</strong> <strong>Ellison</strong> sites. Hyperlink users should observe a website's terms of use<br />
and copyright. <strong>Minter</strong> <strong>Ellison</strong> disclaims liability for the accuracy or use of material on others' sites.