John James Memorial Hospital Ltd v Keys

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

John James Memorial Hospital Ltd v Keys [1999] FCA 678

NEGLIGENCE – Action by elderly patient against hospital – Fall in bathroom – Patient under medication likely to cause drowsiness and confusion – Liability of hospital for any failure of communication by treating medical practitioner – State of knowledge of nursing sister.
DAMAGES – Inadequacy of award for general damages.

THE JOHN JAMES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LIMITED v DULCIE BERYL KEYS
AG103 of 1998

GALLOP, WILCOX and WHITLAM JJ
CANBERRA
21 MAY 1999            

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG103 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	THE JOHN JAMES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LIMITED Appellant
AND:	DULCIE BERYL KEYS Respondent
JUDGES:	GALLOP, WILCOX and WHITLAM JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	21 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The cross-appeal be allowed.

3.The judgment of the trial judge be set aside.

4.Judgment be entered for the respondent in the sum of $82,448 plus costs.

5.The appellant pay the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG103 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT

OF AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	THE JOHN JAMES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LIMITED Appellant
AND:	DULCIE BERYL KEYS Respondent

JUDGES:	GALLOP, WILCOX and WHITLAM JJ
DATE:	21 MAY 1999
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. THE COURT:  This is an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Miles CJ) in an action for damages brought by the respondent (to whom we shall refer as the plaintiff) against The John James Memorial Hospital Limited (“the hospital”).  The plaintiff claimed the hospital acted negligently in relation to two falls she experienced whilst she was a patient in the hospital.

   The facts

2. The plaintiff was born on 21 December 1923; so she was in her 73^rd year at the time of her hospitalisation, April-May 1996.  Although the plaintiff had fallen on two prior occasions, in 1985 and 1993, and had suffered a mild heart attack in 1992, the trial judge found she led an active social and family life up to the time of her hospitalisation.

3. On 1 April 1996 the plaintiff commenced to experience severe sciatic pain.  She consulted a general practitioner who arranged x-rays that revealed degenerative disc disease and the narrowing of disc space.  She was referred to a consultant physician, Dr R B Goldrick.  By 14 April the sciatic pain was so intense that Dr Goldrick arranged her admission to the hospital for pain relief and observation.  Pethidine was administered.  An MRI scan revealed compression of the L5 nerve root.  Dr Roger Tuck, a neurologist, advised a conservative approach.  From 16 April onwards, the plaintiff was given Tegretol in conjunction with Pethidine, initially only one 200mg dose per day but…