Elysee v Ngo

[2018] NSWDC 137

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Elysee v Ngo [2018] NSWDC 137
Hearing dates:	10, 14-16 May 2018
Decision date:	24 May 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Cowdroy QC ADCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $209,700.  (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Catchwords:	TORTS - negligence - professional negligence – medical practitioner failing to diagnose potential chronic illness in plaintiff for extended period – defendant failing to refer plaintiff for specialist medical treatment.
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Baker-Morrison v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 35 CSR Limited v Eddie [2005] HCA 64; 80 ALJR 59 EMI Australia Limited v Bes [1970] 2 NSWR 238 Kay v Sydney Airports Corporation Limited [2014] NSWSC 744 Londos v Amaca Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDDT 7 Metro North Hospital and Health Service v Pierce [2018] NSWCA 11 State of New South Wales v Gillett [2012] NSWCA 83 Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2005] HCA 5
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Sam Elysee (Plaintiff) Dr Trung Huu Ngo (First Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A. Campbell (Plaintiff) Mr M. Hutchins (Second Defendant)     Solicitors: Gerard Malouf & Partners (Plaintiff) Meridian Lawyers (2nd Defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/00097659

Judgment

1. In these proceedings the plaintiff claims damages alleging medical negligence of the defendant. By way of background, I will state the following.

THE CLAIM

2. The plaintiff is a 63 year old man who claims to have suffered an injury in consequence of a negligent act of his general practitioner, the defendant. Originally seven general practitioners, all practicing from the Bankstown Medical Practice were sued in these proceedings. As a result of consent orders after the commencement of the hearing, all defendants except the current defendant were released, on the basis of the Consent Judgments in favour of each defendant, with each party to pay its own costs. An interlocutory judgment records various aspects of these proceedings, which I shall come to in due course.

3. The claim brought under the second further Amended Statement of Claim continued against the only remaining defendant (“the defendant”) in the absence of the remaining defendants. The second further Amended Statement of Claim records that the plaintiff first consulted the defendant on 20 July 2009, as the plaintiff's blood pressure was high.

4. The plaintiff continued to see the defendant during 2010 and 2011, and registered elevated glycated haemoglobin scores. On 15 February 2012 the plaintiff consulted the defendant complaining of nausea, bloating, flatulence, fatigue and body aches. The defendant tested the plaintiff for blood pressure, creatinine and HbA.

5. On 12 April 2012 the plaintiff ordered more blood tests which showed creatinine was elevated, his eGFR was low, and his urine was normal. A CT scan was ordered by the defendant on 16 April 2012. It revealed the possibility of chronic renal disease, and this was diagnosed by the defendant and the plaintiff was then referred to the emergency department at Liverpool Hospital.

6. On 18 April 2012…