Busa v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Trading as Sydney Eye Hospital

In the case of Busa v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Trading as Sydney Eye Hospital, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant hospital, alleging negligence in the treatment of his left eye. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered loss of vision, ongoing pain, and psychiatric damage due to the defendant's actions during a medical procedure. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant breached its duty of care by performing an excessive number of attempts to tap vitreous fluid, and whether the defendant's failure to document the procedure constituted a breach of its duty of care.

The court considered the plaintiff's evidence to be unreliable, whereas the defendant's evidence was supported by contemporaneous notes and accepted as accurate. It was determined that no more than three injections were attempted during the procedure, which was deemed to be of a standard widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice. The court concluded that the defendant did not breach its duty of care in performing the procedure. Furthermore, there is no requirement for a doctor to make notes, and therefore no breach of duty could be found in the omission of notes. The court also found that the failure to make out a defence under section 5O does not impose liability on the defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiff's expert evidence, as the overseas treating doctor who prepared five reports did not acknowledge the Expert Witness Code and lacked the objectivity of other experts. Additionally, the doctor had never practised in Australia, and the reports were obtained without letters of instruction. The doctor's reversal of opinion on a significant matter further undermined the reliability of their evidence. As a result, the plaintiff's expert evidence was rejected unless it was in unanimity with the other experts.

The court found in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claims of negligence. The orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed with costs.