Legal Research
Cases
Rothonis v Lattimore

Rothonis v Lattimore

Case [2016] NSWSC 1409 5 October 2016

Assessment of Damages

Medical Law

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rothonis v Lattimore [2016] NSWSC 1409
Hearing dates: 20 – 29 June 2016, 8 August 2016
Date of orders: 05 October 2016
Decision date: 05 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
1. Judgment for the defendant.
2. Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
CIVIL LAW – professional negligence – medical – patient suffered neurological symptoms – whether cardiologist breached duty of care by failing adequately to investigate patient’s heart – requirements of reasonable care and skill in the circumstances – whether a cerebral vascular event had occurred – whether cardiologist would have advised treatment if patent foramen ovale had been identified in the heart – distinction between primary prevention and secondary prevention of stroke
DAMAGES – assessment of physical and cognitive disabilities – non-economic loss – 70% of most extreme case – out-of-pocket expenses – domestic assistance – aids and equipment – life expectancy
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48
Dobler v Kenneth Halverson; Dobler v Kurt Halverson (by his tutor) (2007) 70 NSWLR 151; [2007] NSWCA 335
Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 72
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479; [2007] HCA 58
Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537; [2010] HCA 12
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; [1980] HCA 12
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anastasia Rothonis (Plaintiff)
Dr Jo-Dee Lattimore (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Michael Burnell Williams SC/Mr Richard O’Keefe/Mr Paul Stockley (Plaintiff)
Mr Richard Weinstein SC/Ms Katherine Richardson/Mr Tim Hackett
Solicitors:
Ms Virginia Hart, Virginia Hart Medical Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Ms Louise Hazelton, Norton Rose Fulbright

File Number(s): 2013/153895

Judgment

In early September 2006 the plaintiff was referred to the defendant, a cardiologist, for investigation of possible involvement of her heart in neurological symptoms which she had recently experienced. The plaintiff alleges the defendant negligently failed to carry out sufficient investigations and failed to diagnose or to prescribe treatment for a patent foramen ovale (“PFO”). That is, an opening through the interatrial septum, being the membrane dividing the left and right upper chambers of her heart. On 7 June 2007 the plaintiff suffered a stroke which has left her significantly disabled. The plaintiff claims damages for alleged negligence upon the ground that the defendant failed to identify the PFO in September 2006 and allowed it to go untreated and to cause the stroke.

Neurological symptoms and investigations before 4 September 2006

In about the third week of August 2006 the plaintiff suffered some disturbance to her vision and consciousness whilst driving. This was reported on the same day to her husband by the plaintiff’s aunt who had been a passenger in the car. The plaintiff’s daughter then told him the plaintiff had suffered something similar…

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 Rothonis v Lattimore

Details

AGLC: Rothonis v Lattimore [2016] NSWSC 1409
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1409
Decision Date: 05 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rothonis v Lattimore involved a claim of professional negligence against a cardiologist. The plaintiff, Rothonis, suffered neurological symptoms and alleged that the cardiologist, Lattimore, failed to adequately investigate her heart, breaching his duty of care. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding this claim, including the requirements of reasonable care and skill in the circumstances, and whether a cerebral vascular event had occurred. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Lattimore would have advised treatment if a patent foramen ovale had been identified in the heart, as well as the distinction between primary and secondary prevention of stroke.

The court considered whether Lattimore's actions constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to Rothonis. It examined the standard of care expected of a cardiologist in similar circumstances and whether Lattimore's actions met this standard. The court also evaluated the evidence regarding the occurrence of a cerebral vascular event and its potential impact on Rothonis's condition. Furthermore, the court explored the hypothetical scenario of a patent foramen ovale being identified and whether Lattimore would have advised treatment in that case. The distinction between primary and secondary prevention of stroke was also a key consideration in the court's analysis.

In its decision, the court determined that Lattimore did not breach the duty of care owed to Rothonis. It found that the cardiologist's actions met the standard of reasonable care and skill expected in the circumstances. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a cerebral vascular event had occurred, and even if it had, it was unlikely that Lattimore would have advised treatment in the absence of a patent foramen ovale. The court also clarified the distinction between primary and secondary prevention of stroke, emphasizing that Lattimore's failure to identify a potential cause of stroke did not constitute negligence. Consequently, the court dismissed Rothonis's claim for professional negligence.

The court further assessed the damages awarded to Rothonis for her physical and cognitive disabilities, non-economic loss, and out-of-pocket expenses. It found that the quantum of damages was appropriate, with non-economic loss assessed at 70% of the most extreme case. The court considered domestic assistance, aids and equipment, and life expectancy in determining the overall damages. The final orders of the court reflected the dismissal of Rothonis's claim and the assessment of her damages.

Orders