Lemm v Daniels

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lemm & Anor v Daniels & Anor [2001] QDC 231

PARTIES:

LILLIAN BETH LEMM
(first plaintiff)
DERECK LEMM
(second plaintiff)
v
MARC SHAHEED DANIELS
(first defendant)
MOOLOOABA MEDICAL CENTRE
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D95 of 2000

DIVISION:

District Court

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2001, 4 September 2001

JUDGE:

K. S. Dodds DCJ

ORDER:

1. I give judgement for the first plaintiff against the first defendant for $30,577;

2. I give judgement for the second plaintiff against the first defendant for $2,500;
3. I give judgement for the second defendant against the plaintiffs.

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLEGENCE – STANDANRD OF CARE – where doctor visited the first plaintiff at her home - first plaintiff had experience chest pains – diagnosed with epigastric discomfort – where a myocardial infarction was diagnosed some 2 days later.

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLEGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – where the first plaintiff was not advised to attend the surgery or the hospital – when a myocardial infarction was diagnosed 2 days later.

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLEGENCE – LOSS OF CHANCE – where the first plaintiff had heart attack – where heart attack not diagnosed for two days – where thrombolytic treatment may have increased the ejection fraction.
NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLEGENCE – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM – where the second plaintiff claims loss of society, companionship and services of the first plaintiff – where the second plaintiff attends to domestic activities because the first plaintiff tires.

COUNSEL:

J McDougall for the first and second plaintiffs
SC Williams QC and G Diehm for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt for the first and second plaintiffs
Flower & Hart Solicitors for the first and second defendants

1. In this case the first defendant is a medical practitioner in general practice. The second defendant is the practice. The first plaintiff was examined and treated by the first defendant. The second plaintiff is the first plaintiff’s husband.

1. The first plaintiff is a 69 year old woman. Her action is for damages for personal injury allegedly caused by the negligence of the first and/or second defendant. The second plaintiff’s action is for damages for loss of consortium.

1. The second plaintiff initiated telephone contact with the second defendant at about 10.00am – 10.30am on Saturday 26 June 1999 seeking a home visit for the first plaintiff. At that time, the first plaintiff was feeling very nauseous. Later that day the first defendant visited the plaintiff’s home. On the afternoon of the following day, the Sunday, the first defendant visited the plaintiff’s home again. On the following Monday, at about 7.30am, the second plaintiff telephoned the second defendant. Later that day at about 4.00pm the plaintiffs’ came to the second defendant’s surgery. An electrocardiograph (“ECG”) was done, which revealed a myocardial infarct. An ambulance was summoned and the first plaintiff was transported to the Nambour Hospital.

1. The first defendant’s clinical notes about these encounters…