Chapter 2 - LexisNexis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(Inc) v Rossiter [2009] WASC 229 addressed similar issues when consideringthe legal obligations of a medical service provider with responsibility for thecare of a mentally competent quadriplegic patient who directed the medicalservice provider to discontinue provision of nutrition and general hydration.The court’s reasons were consistent with the principle of patient autonomy orself-determination as to whether or not the patient will continue to receivemedical treatment. See also Australian Captial Territory v JT [2009] ACTSC105 which addressed consent to medical treatment in the context of thepatient’s wishes based on a delusional set of assumptions.• Advanced Arbor Services Pty Limited v Phung [2009] NSWSC 1331 is anunusual case focusing on issues going beyond medical treatement. It isincluded here as it included liability for misrepresentation under the TradePractices Act and the Fair Trading Act (NSW).• Hammond v Heath [2010] WASCA 6 considers the extent of the duty to warn,in particular regarding the removal of materials (in this case, mesh) usedduring the course of surgery.2.6 The court as the ultimate arbiter• The discussion in the text regarding Rogers v Whitaker notes that the standardof care is not to be determined solely, or even primarily, by reference to thepractice followed or supported by a responsible body of opinion in theprofession. Marko v Falk [2008] NSWCA 293 at [76] – [79] briefly addressedthe circumstances in which a court may substitute its own opinion in thefollowing terms: ‘Mr Neil submitted that Rogers v Whitaker supported theproposition that if all members of a particular profession were doingsomething that was not in accordance with what the Court considered to becareful practice, then the Court should say so. That submission was pitched atsuch a high level of generality as to be meaningless. It fails to recognise thecareful distinction all members of the High Court drew in Rogers v Whitakerbetween diagnosis and treatment, and warning of risks. Mr Neil did notsuggest any sensible route by which the Court could impose a view as tocareful practice contrary to the medical opinions called on both parties’behalves. Mr Neil could not refer the Court to any case since (or before)Rogers v Whitaker in which the court had taken the course he propounded in acase which involved clinical judgment in an operational context……In myview this was a case where the plurality view in Rogers v Whitaker as to theoften decisive role professional opinion may play has strong resonance.’<strong>Chapter</strong> 33.9 Duty under statuteReturn to table of contents• In the context of possible claims against medical practitioners under the TradePractices Act 1974 (Cth), see Kowalczuk v Accom Finance [2008] NSWCA343. The court followed Shahid v Australian College of Dermatologists [2008]FCAFC 72; (2008) 168 FCR 46.
3.24 Qualifications and experience• Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 4. Consideration of aspects of Cook v Cook;Duty of care in the context of special relationship between plaintiff anddefendant.3.32 Rural v city locations• Richards & Ors v Rahilly & Anor [2005] NSWSC 352 at [145]: Rural practicemay be a relevant circumstance in determining adequate care, in that access tosophisticated equipment is not as readily available as it would be in the city.Medico legal examinations• Basha v Vocational Capacity Centre Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 409:Aggravation of shoulder injuries during vocational assessment; content ofduty.<strong>Chapter</strong> 44.1 Duties to third partiesReturn to table of contents• Glennie v Glennie [2009] NSWSC 154. As noted in the text, in Sullivan vMoody [2001] HCA 59; (2001) 207 CLR 562 the High Court consideredwhether medical practitioners, social workers and departmental officersinvolved in investigating and reporting upon allegations of child sexual abuseowed a duty of care to suspects. The court concluded that no such dutyexisted. Glennie v Glennie is an interlocutory decision addressing only alimitation period extension, but it foreshadows a claim against a medicalpractitioner by a sexual assault victim. It is alleged that the medicalpractitioner failed in his statutory duty to report sexual abuse of which he wasaware, thereby allowing it to continue such that the victim suffered furtherdamage.• Chahoud v Koleda [2008] NSWSC 1060; (2007-2008) 72 NSWLR 740. Amedical practitioner has no duty to a beneficiary of the will of a deceasedpatient in relation to advice to a court regarding the deceased’s capacity andhas the benefit of witness immunity for the contents of letters provided to acourt or legal practitioner on the capacity of a deceased patient to execute awill.• Privacy & Disclosure: Concerns about tensions between patient privacy andlegal or ethical obligations to disclose to third parties who may be harmedhave been addressed in the area of genetic information. The National Healthand Medical Research Council (NHMRC), in cooperation with the Office ofthe Privacy Commissioner (OPC), have released new guidelines to assisthealth practitioners in making decisions about disclosing genetic informationto their patient’s genetic relatives. The new guidelines permit medicalpracitioners to disclose information to a genetic relative of the patient without
Page 1: Australian Medical LiabilityAuthors
Page 5 and 6: Chapter 55.19 Ethical framework•
Page 7 and 8: • Transfield Services (Australia)
Page 9 and 10: • In Hope v Hunter and New Englan
Page 11 and 12: 9.12 Wednesbury unreasonableness•
Page 13 and 14: • Watson -v- Kailis [2008] WADC 9
Page 15 and 16: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/
Page 17: • Dragica Ljubic v Sydney Robert

Chapter 2 - LexisNexis

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?