KL v Farnsworth - [2002] NSWSC 382

CITATION: KL v Farnsworth [2002] NSWSC 382

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20441/98

HEARING DATE(S): 19/11/2001
20/11/2001
21/11/2001
22/11/2001
23/11/2001
26/11/2001
27/11/2001
28/11/2001
29/11/2001
7/12/2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 9 May 2002

PARTIES :

KL - Plaintiff
Dr Robert H Farnsworth - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

COUNSEL : P Menzies QC - Plaintiff
P Brereton SC - Defendant

SOLICITORS: David Hirsch - Plaintiff
John Pavlakis - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: risks and possible consequences of medical procedures - adequate information - duty to warn of reasonably foreseeable consequences - breach of duty - competing advantages and disadvantages - alternative forms of surgery - causation

CASES CITED: Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18, 75 ALRJ 734
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
S v R (1983) 33 SASR 189
Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA55; 195 CLR 232

DECISION: Verdict for the defendant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
professional negligence list

SIMPSON J

9 May 2002

20441/98 KL v Dr Robert Farnsworth
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: The plaintiff, to whom I will refer as KL, brings these proceedings against the defendant, Dr Robert Farnsworth, claiming damages as a consequence of what she claims was negligent medical advice given to her by him in and about November 1995. KL does not claim that treatment subsequently afforded to her was negligently administered; her case is solely based upon the proposition that Dr Farnsworth failed adequately to disclose to her material matters concerning the treatment he offered her; that this led to her making a decision to accept a particular form of treatment that she would not, if fully informed, have made; and that this, in turn, caused compensable damage.

2 In brief terms the background facts are these. KL was born on 8 December 1963. At birth she suffered a rare abnormality, called “bladder exstrophy”, meaning that her bladder was partly outside her body. She had some immediate ameliorative treatment, the nature of which does not emerge clearly from the evidence; in 1968, when she was five years old, she underwent surgery identified (ex C tab16) as “uretero-ileostomy”. This involved the removal of a section of her right intestine (the ilea) to create an artificial urethra, called an ileal conduit. This did not create a normal urinary excretory system, which KL has never had. From the age of five KL excreted urine through the ileal conduit into a bag worn externally. Remarkably enough, and to her (and her medical practitioners’) considerable credit, KL lived thereafter an entirely normal and very active life. She engaged in all normal sports; in 1981 at the age of eighteen, and in 1987, at the age of twenty-three, she gave birth to, respectively, a son and a daughter. Later in 1987 she married (the father of the two children, with whom she had had a continuing relationship). Although she appears to have been an under-achiever at school and to have abandoned formal education in 1978, after completing year 10, she was successful in a variety…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading KL v Farnsworth

Details

AGLC: KL v Farnsworth [2002] NSWSC 382
Case: [2002] NSWSC 382
Decision Date: 9 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of KL v Farnsworth, the plaintiff, KL, sought damages against the defendant, Dr Farnsworth, a surgeon. KL alleged that the defendant breached his duty of care by not adequately informing her of the risks and potential consequences of the surgical procedure she underwent, leading to significant complications and adverse outcomes. The dispute was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues central to this case were whether Dr Farnsworth had a duty to inform KL of the reasonably foreseeable risks and consequences of the surgery, whether this duty was breached, and if the breach directly caused the plaintiff's complications. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the information provided was adequate and whether alternative surgical options were discussed.

The court found that Dr Farnsworth did have a duty to provide KL with comprehensive information about the risks, benefits, and alternative procedures available. It was determined that the information provided fell short of the standard required, as it did not adequately cover the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the surgery. The court concluded that the defendant breached this duty, which directly contributed to the plaintiff's complications. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded damages for the harm suffered.

Orders