Coote v Dr Kelly

The case of Coote v Dr Kelly involved a medical negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, a general practitioner. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in diagnosing a lesion on the plaintiff's foot as a plantar wart, when in fact it was an acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to consider ALM as a differential diagnosis, did not refer the plaintiff for specialist investigation, and did not perform a punch biopsy of the lesion. The plaintiff alleged that these failures constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff and resulted in a delay in the treatment of the ALM, which caused the plaintiff harm.

The legal issues in the case were whether the defendant breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff by failing to consider ALM as a differential diagnosis, by not referring the plaintiff for specialist investigation, and by not performing a punch biopsy of the lesion. The court was also required to determine whether the breach of duty caused harm to the plaintiff and, if so, whether the harm was foreseeable. The court heard evidence from medical experts on both sides of the case, and the admissibility and reliability of this evidence was a key issue in the proceedings.

The court found that the defendant breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff by failing to consider ALM as a differential diagnosis, by not referring the plaintiff for specialist investigation, and by not performing a punch biopsy of the lesion. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was foreseeable. However, the court found that the plaintiff had not established causation on the balance of probabilities, and therefore the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's harm. The court found that even if the ALM had been treated earlier, it was unlikely that the outcome would have been different. The court also found that the defendant's evidence was credible and that the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to diagnose and treat the plaintiff's condition. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and awarded costs to the defendant.