Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) - [2022] QDC 237

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237

PARTIES:

GARY PARSONS
(applicant)

V

TERRY RYAN, STATE CORONER
(respondent)

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(amicus curiae)

FILE NO/S:

2887/2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 and 19 July 2022, with further written submissions supplied on 2 August 2022 (applicant) and 8 August 2022 (amicus curiae)

JUDGE:

Prskalo A/DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – CORONERS – INQUESTS AND INQUIRIES – where there is an application for an order by the District Court under s 11A Coroners Act 2003 that a death is a ‘reportable death’ on the basis that it meets the statutory definition of a ‘health care related death’ under s 10AA – where the application is refused on the basis that the objective requirements of s 10AA were not satisfied by the evidence.

LEGISLATION:

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ss 22, 36
Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) ss 3, 8, 10AA, 11, 11A, 27, 28, 30, Sch 2
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

CASES:

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194
Davies v Ryan, State Coroner [2019] QCA 282
The Queen v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13

COUNSEL:

Self-represented applicant
E J Cooper for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Self-represented applicant
Crown Law for the respondent

The Application

Keiran Parsons was a 26-year-old man with a history of signet-ring cell carcinoma of the colon – a rare primary cause of colonic cancer particularly in a person of his youth. When he was diagnosed with the disease in late September 2011, he was suffering from advanced disease with a large obstructing and invasive cancer. He was treated with surgical excision and end-to-end anastomosis and referred to the Redcliffe Hospital for adjunctive chemotherapy. It appears that Keiran had only partially completed the course of chemotherapy, before opting to cease treatment due to side-effects. He was subsequently managed with supportive treatment and, eventually, palliation until he succumbed to his illness on 3 April 2013.[1]
[1] Affidavit of BP – Exhibit BP-54 – Dr Hall’s report at pp. 1, 22.

Keiran’s father, Mr Gary Parsons is the applicant in this proceeding. His wife and Keiran’s mother, Mrs Christine Parsons, was present at the hearing as a McKenzie friend.

History of the investigation

By correspondence dated 18 September 2014, the applicant referred the death of his son to the Office of the State Coroner.[2] In essence the complaint, detailed in an 81-page document, alleged negligence by Queensland Health staff in failing to diagnose a preventable cancer. The applicant sought a full inquest and the establishment of an independent body to investigate all Queensland Health deaths.
[2] As the Coroners Court of Queensland was then titled.

On 13 October 2014, the applicant was notified that the State Coroner had requested the Registrar to examine his concerns with a view to determining whether the death was reportable under…

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 Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner)

Details

AGLC: Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237
Case: [2022] QDC 237
Decision Date: 4 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) involved an application by the District Court under section 11A of the Coroners Act 2003. The applicant sought an order that a death be deemed a'reportable death', specifically on the basis that it met the statutory definition of a 'health care related death' under section 10AA. The deceased was a patient who had been receiving treatment from a medical practitioner. The State Coroner was tasked with determining whether the application should be granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented satisfied the objective requirements of section 10AA of the Coroners Act 2003. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the death was indeed a 'health care related death', which would necessitate reporting to the Coroner. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the patient's treatment and death to ascertain if the statutory criteria were met. The court's task was to interpret the statutory language and apply it to the facts of the case, determining whether the death was sufficiently connected to the health care provided to warrant classification as a reportable death.

The court found that the evidence did not meet the objective requirements of section 10AA. The court determined that while the death occurred during the course of health care, it was not directly caused by any deficiencies in the treatment provided. The court emphasised that the statutory definition required a more direct causal link between the health care and the death. Given the evidence presented, the court concluded that the necessary criteria were not satisfied. Consequently, the application for the death to be classified as a reportable death was dismissed. The court's reasoning was grounded in a careful analysis of the statutory language and the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237
PARTIES:	GARY PARSONS (applicant) V TERRY RYAN, STATE CORONER (respondent) AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (amicus curiae)
FILE NO/S:	2887/2021
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 and 19 July 2022, with further written submissions supplied on 2 August 2022 (applicant) and 8 August 2022 (amicus curiae)
JUDGE:	Prskalo A/DCJ
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	MAGISTRATES – CORONERS – INQUESTS AND INQUIRIES – where there is an application for an order by the District Court under s 11A Coroners Act 2003 that a death is a ‘reportable death’ on the basis that it meets the statutory definition of a ‘health care related death’ under s 10AA – where the application is refused on the basis that the objective requirements of s 10AA were not satisfied by the evidence.
LEGISLATION:	Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ss 22, 36 Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) ss 3, 8, 10AA, 11, 11A, 27, 28, 30, Sch 2 Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)
CASES:	Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 Davies v Ryan, State Coroner [2019] QCA 282 The Queen v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
COUNSEL:	Self-represented applicant E J Cooper for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Self-represented applicant Crown Law for the respondent