Cerutti v Forbes-Johnson

This case involved an appeal from a judgment of the primary judge concerning allegations of medical negligence against an anaesthetist, the appellant, in favour of the respondent patient. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the anaesthetic dosage administered during an operation, which allegedly led to the patient experiencing pain.

The legal issues before the court were whether the anaesthetist's opinion regarding the adequacy of the anaesthetic dosage was one that no reasonable anaesthetist would have held, or if the anaesthetist otherwise departed from proper medical practice. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the primary judge erred in finding the anaesthetist negligent, particularly in relation to the assessment of risks associated with administering a higher anaesthetic dose and the interpretation of expert evidence concerning dosage and potential complications.

The court found that while it was open for the primary judge to accept evidence suggesting the administered dosage was insufficient, the essential question was not which medical opinion was preferable, but whether the appellant's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable anaesthetist. The court identified an appealable error in the primary judge's failure to adequately consider the evidence regarding the risks of administering a higher dose, such as a significant fall in blood pressure and diminished blood flow to the foetus, which were not challenged in cross-examination. The court concluded that it was a respectable medical view that there were appreciable risks in administering more anaesthetic than necessary, and an anaesthetist holding this view would not be acting unreasonably by administering only the amount required to prevent pain. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge had misconstrued expert evidence regarding the risk of anaesthetic failure and the circumstances under which higher dosages or epidural top-ups were recommended.

The appeal was allowed, and the verdict and judgment of the primary judge were set aside. In their place, a verdict and judgment were entered for the appellant, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings and the appeal.