Masson v State of Queensland

The case of Masson v State of Queensland involved the appellant, Ms Masson, who suffered a severe asthma attack leading to her death due to hypoxic brain damage. The primary issue was whether the ambulance officer, Mr Peters, breached his duty of care by administering salbutamol instead of adrenaline, despite the ambulance manual's instruction to consider adrenaline. The court had to determine whether the officer's actions constituted negligence and whether it was consistent with reasonable care and skill to depart from the manual's guidance.

The legal issues addressed included whether the ambulance officer considered the administration of adrenaline, whether the officer departed from the manual's guidance, and whether there is a responsible body of medical opinion that supports the administration of salbutamol over adrenaline for a patient in imminent arrest with high blood pressure and a high heart rate. The court also considered whether it was consistent with the exercise of reasonable care and skill for an ambulance officer to depart from the guidance of their manual.

The court found that Mr Peters did consider the administration of adrenaline, and his decision to administer salbutamol instead was reasonable given the patient's tachycardia and hypertension. The court held that the standard of care expected from an ambulance officer in the field is not as high as that expected from a medical practitioner or an emergency physician in a hospital setting. The decision to administer salbutamol, despite the manual's guidance to consider adrenaline, was deemed reasonable given the risks involved. The court concluded that the treatment administered did not fall below the standard of care, and the claim for negligence failed.

The court's decision was grounded in the recognition that ambulance officers are not specialists in emergency medicine and their primary role is to stabilize the patient and ensure timely transfer to a hospital. The evidence and medical opinion presented showed that the administration of salbutamol in this context was a reasonable response to the known risks, and the officer's actions did not constitute negligence.