Marko v Falk

The appeal in *Marko v Falk* concerned a claim for medical negligence arising from endoscopic surgery. The appellant, the patient, alleged that the respondent, the surgeon, had been negligent in the performance of the surgery and in failing to warn of the risks associated with the procedure. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the surgeon had breached the standard of care expected of a reasonable medical practitioner in the diagnosis and treatment provided, and whether the surgeon had adequately warned the patient of the material risks inherent in the surgery. The court also considered the applicability of the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur* to the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal applied the principles established in *Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee* and its subsequent interpretations in Australian law, which require a medical practitioner to exercise the degree of care and skill of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same field. The court distinguished between the duty to warn of risks and the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in treatment. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the surgeon's actions fell below the accepted standard of medical practice, nor that the warnings provided were inadequate in the circumstances. The doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur* was not found to be applicable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.