Hookey v Paterno

The case of Hookey v Paterno involved a dispute between a patient, Ms Hookey, and her maxillofacial surgeon, Dr Paterno. Ms Hookey alleged that Dr Paterno was negligent in recommending orthognathic surgery to correct a Class II malocclusion in her jaw. She further claimed that Dr Paterno failed to warn her of the potential adverse effects of the surgery. The surgery was performed with care but resulted in physical injury to Ms Hookey, which she argued would not have occurred if she had been properly informed of the risks. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether Dr Paterno owed a duty to warn Ms Hookey of the risks and if his failure to do so was causally connected to her injuries. Additionally, the court was asked to assess the award of damages and whether the general damages awarded were manifestly excessive or if sufficient allowance was made for the possibility of improvement in Ms Hookey’s condition.

The court addressed several legal issues, including the standard of care owed by Dr Paterno to Ms Hookey, whether a duty existed to warn of the risks associated with the surgery, and if the failure to warn constituted a breach of that duty. Furthermore, the court examined whether the injuries Ms Hookey suffered were a direct result of the failure to warn and if the patient would have undergone the surgery had she been fully informed of the risks. Finally, the court considered whether the damages awarded to Ms Hookey were excessive or if they appropriately accounted for the potential for improvement in her condition.

In its judgment, the court held that Dr Paterno did indeed owe a duty to warn Ms Hookey of the risks associated with the orthognathic surgery. It found that Dr Paterno breached this duty by failing to adequately inform her of the potential adverse effects. The court concluded that the failure to warn was causally connected to Ms Hookey’s injuries, as she would likely not have proceeded with the surgery had she been fully informed of the risks. Regarding the damages, the court found that while the award for general damages was substantial, it was not manifestly excessive, as it sufficiently considered the possibility of improvement in Ms Hookey’s condition.

The court ordered that Dr Paterno pay Ms Hookey the damages previously awarded, finding that the general damages awarded were appropriate under the circumstances.