Rogers v Whitaker

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Maree Lynette Whitaker, sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal. The central dispute revolved around the extent of a doctor's duty of care in informing a patient about the risks associated with a surgical procedure. It was not disputed that the doctor had acted without negligence in recommending and performing the operation on the applicant's right eye.

The legal issues before the High Court included the standard of care required of a medical practitioner in warning a patient of risks associated with treatment. Specifically, the Court was required to consider what information a doctor must disclose to a patient regarding the potential risks of a medical procedure, and how the rarity of a particular risk affects this duty. The Court also had to determine whether the doctor's knowledge of the risk of sympathetic ophthalmia, an extremely rare condition, and its statistical incidence, was sufficient to trigger a duty to warn the patient.

The Court's reasoning focused on the doctor's duty to warn of a material risk. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in the patient's position, if warned of the risk, would be likely to attach significance to it in deciding whether to undergo the proposed treatment. The Court held that the doctor's duty extended to warning of risks that are not only statistically significant but also those that, by reason of their nature, could assume importance to the patient. The Court found that the doctor was aware of the possibility of sympathetic ophthalmia, even if rare, and that this risk, due to its potential for blindness, was a matter that a reasonable patient would want to know. The Court also considered the context of the patient's specific circumstances, including a history of trauma to the eye, which could potentially increase the significance of the risk.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court found that the doctor had failed to adequately warn the patient of the risk of sympathetic ophthalmia, and that this failure constituted a breach of the doctor's duty of care.