Australia: Lessons from Wallace v Ramsay Health Care

Life Sciences update
Last Updated: 9 September 2011
Article by Jessica Kinny and Wendy Blacker

A medical practitioner's duty to warn their patient of the risks associated with a procedure is well known in the medical field and is supported by a clear and consistent line of authority[1]. Despite this, a common feature of medical malpractice is miscommunication with the patient.

The decision of Justice Harrison in Wallace v Ramsay Health Care[2] (Wallace) serves as a reminder to medical practitioners that to sufficiently discharge their duty, a warning about the risks associated with a procedure must be tailored to the patient and communicated to them in a way that they understand.

The plaintiff in Wallace cast a wide net of allegations against the hospital (where he was admitted for treatment) and against Dr Kam (the defendant), who rendered the treatment. By the time the matter was heard Dr Kam remained the only defendant. The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that the defendant breached his duty of care by failing to issue a specific warning. However, the defendant was not found liable in negligence because the plaintiff failed to establish causation.

Facts

The plaintiff was suffering from severe back pain that he was desperate to overcome. The plaintiff sought assistance from many practitioners and tried many other treatments before consulting with the defendant.

The defendant diagnosed the plaintiff as having an intervertebral disc protrusion in his lumbar spine. The plaintiff had several consultations with the defendant, in which the defendant gave advice, including advice that he should lose weight. The plaintiff was obese and it was hoped that a reduction in body weight might result in a reduction in back pain.

The plaintiff tried to reduce his weight, and was partly successful. At one stage the plaintiff had reduced his weight from 124kgs to 110kgs, however, this did not reduce his pain. His back pain became so severe that he became bed-ridden. Due to the ongoing pain and immobility, and the unlikelihood of the plaintiff losing any more weight, the defendant recommended the plaintiff undergo immediate surgery. The surgery recommended was a posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

The defendant provided the plaintiff with general advice as to the risks associated with surgery and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The plaintiff elected to undergo the surgery.

A posterior lumbar interbody fusion is major surgery, which usually takes four hours to complete. For reasons including the plaintiff's obesity, the surgery took six hours, which put a lot of stress on the plaintiff's body.

Upon regaining consciousness post operatively, the plaintiff found he was suffering extreme pain and his legs were paralysed. The plaintiff underwent an emergency MRI and further surgery the following morning to diagnose the cause of his extreme pain and paralysis. The cause of the pain and paralysis could not be found. Ultimately the plaintiff was diagnosed with bilateral femoral neurapraxia, a temporary condition caused by prolonged pressure (on account of the extended duration of the surgery) on the femoral nerves.

Legal issues

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to properly warn him that the surgery involved a number of risks with the possibility of adverse consequences; specifically, that there was an additional risk of bilateral femoral neurapraxia due to the prolonged duration of the surgery.

To determine the defendant's liability, Justice Harrison considered whether the elements of negligence had been established, specifically whether:

  • the defendant breached his duty by failing to warn of the material risks of the surgery he performed;
  • the plaintiff suffered harm in the circumstances; and
  • if the plaintiff suffered harm, whether the harm was caused by the defendant's breach.

Whether the defendant breached his duty

The first issue was whether the defendant breached his duty to adequately warn the patient.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant's warning was inadequate or insufficient, as he did not warn him of the particular dangers associated with the plaintiff's weight, especially the fact that the operation time would be extended because of it, and the risk of a catastrophic outcome.

The plaintiff's position was that he could not give 'informed consent' without being informed of all of the inherent risks and potential consequences of the operation and an explanation of which risks and potential consequences could not be avoided, even by the exercise of reasonable care and skill. Bilateral femoral neurapraxia was one such consequence that the defendant failed to bring to his attention. The plaintiff also contended that he should have been, and was not, warned that his condition following the surgery could be worse than if he had no surgery at all.

The defendant's position was that he gave his usual warning to the plaintiff and that it was adequate in the circumstances.

The parties disputed the content of the warning given. However, there was no dispute as to whether the defendant warned about the risk of bilateral femoral neurapraxia. The defendant admitted that he did not warn the plaintiff of this risk. However, counsel on the defendant's behalf, relying on s 5B(1)(c) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (the Act), submitted a reasonable person in the defendant's position would not have warned about this risk because the probability and likely seriousness of harm was minimal. Significantly, both medical experts, called by the parties respectively, gave evidence that they would not have warned about bilateral femoral neurapraxia for these reasons.

When determining whether a failure to warn of bilateral femoral neurapraxia amounted to a breach of duty, Justice Harrison had regard to the findings by the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker that a doctor has a duty to warn a patient of a material risk inherent in the proposed treatment, and that a risk is material if in the circumstances a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to it if warned of that risk[3].

On the question of determining the risk that ought to be the subject of a warning, his Honour cited the High Court decision in Rosenberg v Percival, which stated that the duty to warn a patient of a material risk inherent in the proposed treatment led to further questions to be addressed:[4]

The first question is 'what "risk" is being spoken of here?' Put another way, it is 'what are the facts and circumstances, the possibility of the occurrence of which constitutes that "risk"?' Once that question is answered one may turn to consider whether the risk is 'material'. Where the action is brought in negligence and the plaintiff is seeking compensation for an injury suffered, the relevant risk is the possibility that the proposed treatment will result in the injury that in fact occurred. It is not, for example, the risk that the patient will make an uninformed decision or choose the wrong option, although that may well underpin the rationale behind the duty.

Although the risk was held to be inherent in the procedure, Justice Harrison made clear that s 5I of the Act did not apply in the circumstances. Under this section, these is an exclusion of liability in negligence for harm suffered as a result of the materialisation of an inherent risk: s 5I(1). The operation of s 5P of the Act prevents s 5I from applying to a duty to warn of a risk as part of a professional service.

Applying a subjective test (which is established law in Australia in relation to warnings) Justice Harrison found that the risk was one that the plaintiff would have attached significance to (given his pain and debility leading up to the surgery) and was therefore one which was material and one in respect of which a warning ought to have been given. Justice Harrison found that a warning to the plaintiff should have included a specific warning about femoral neurapraxia and a failure to issue such a warning amounted to a breach of duty on the part of the defendant.

Whether the plaintiff suffered an injury

Justice Harrison found, on the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff sustained bilateral femoral neurapraxia during the first operative procedure and his post operative symptomatology was a consequence of this.

Counsel on behalf of the defendant argued that the injury was too small to be handled by the court. Justice Harrison was not persuaded by this argument. While Justice Harrison also found that the injury was only temporary and by the time of judgment it had completely resolved, the fact that the plaintiff had suffered harm was sufficient to complete the cause of action.

Whether the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm

The test for causation is set out in section 5D(1) of the Act. It is a twofold test, establishing factual causation and scope of liability. So in order to establish that the negligence caused the harm, the plaintiff had to establish that the negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm, and it was appropriate for the scope of the defendant's liability to extend to the harm caused.

To determine whether the defendant's negligence in fact caused the harm, Justice Harrison considered what the plaintiff would have done if the defendant had not breached his duty. That is, what the plaintiff would have done if the defendant had warned him about the risk of femoral neurapraxia. Section 5D(3) of the Act provides that such a determination is to be subjective, in light of all the relevant circumstances and any statement made by the plaintiff about what he would have done is inadmissible, except to the extent that such a statement is against the plaintiff's interests.

When determining this question, Justice Harrison took into account the following matters:

  • pre-operatively the plaintiff was in extreme pain and had exhausted all his options except major surgery in trying to resolve the pain;
  • although the plaintiff was experiencing difficulty with his mobility, prior to the surgery he was largely immobile due to his obesity; and
  • the plaintiff was not worse off than he was before the operation (when he was confined to his bedroom); in fact, his condition had improved to the extent that he could move about with a walking frame.

The plaintiff's evidence was that he was in desperate need of pain relief prior to the procedure, could hardly walk and was having suicidal thoughts due to the pain. It was determined that the plaintiff would not have declined the surgery where there was a 70% to 75% chance of some relief, and the only relevant risk to him was a mere temporary loss of power and sensation in his lower limbs of the nature and extent of the condition that in fact materialised.

Justice Harrison held that the plaintiff would have undertaken the surgery even if warned of the particular risk that materialised; therefore the negligence was not a necessary condition of the harm. Having found that that factual causation was not established, it was not necessary to consider the question of scope of liability.

Conclusion

Justice Harrison accepted that the defendant medical practitioner had failed to properly warn the defendant of the risks of the procedure and of the increased possibility of adverse consequences due to the plaintiff's obesity. However, because the plaintiff would have elected to have the surgery irrespective of the risks associated with it, the negligence allegation against the defendant was dismissed because causation was not made out.

Lessons from Wallace

Warnings must be specific to the particular patient

The practitioner should not assume that a warning about a particular risk is inherent in a general warning. Justice Harrison made it clear that a medical practitioner will breach his/her duty if the warning is not tailored to the circumstances of the patient.

Specifically address risks relevant to the individual characteristics of the patient, the likelihood of a particular risk materialising and the extent and degree to which it might affect the patient.

Provide warnings in terms that the patient can readily understand

Patients are in a vulnerable position when they consult a medical practitioner. This case demonstrates why it is important that the practitioner ensures the patient understands the proposed procedure and the materials risks associated with it.

The practitioner must ensure that the patient fully understands the nature and extent of the risks and potential outcomes of the treatment. This may be done by asking the patient to confirm his/her understanding of these risks.

Document warnings provided

In Wallace there was a dispute as to the nature of the general warning. Generally a medical practitioner will rely on his or her 'usual procedure' when recalling the warning that was given. There is a risk that the court might find that the 'usual procedure' was not adhered to. The risk of this occurring will generally be reduced if documentary evidence can be provided of the warning that was given. This can be achieved by providing the warning to the patient, both orally and in writing. General warnings lend themselves to being documented because they tend to be the same with each patient. This means that the documented general warning can form part of the patient's medical record, annotated with the specific warnings given.

[1] See Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479; 67 ALJR 47; 109 ALR 625; Tai v Saxon (unreported, WASC, Pidgeon, Franklyn and Ipp JJ, 23 of 1995, 8 February 1996); Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; 75 ALJR 734; 178 ALR 577; ss5H, 5I, 5O and 5P Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

[2] Wallace v Ramsay Health Care [2010] NSWSC 518 (9 July 2010).

[3] [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175CLR 479 at 490 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ.

[4] [2001] HCA 18; (2001) 205 CLR 434 at [60]-[61] per Gleeson J.

contact us

For more information, please contact:

Sydney

Wendy Blacker

t (02) 9931 4922

e wblacker@nsw.gadens.com.au

Melbourne

Andrew Croxford

t (03) 9252 2587

e acroxford@vic.gadens.com.au

Gavin Forrest

t (03) 9252 2518

e gforrest@vic.gadens.com.au

This report does not comprise legal advice and neither Gadens Lawyers nor the authors accept any responsibility for it.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions