Schultz v Bailey - [2006] NSWSC 727

CITATION: SCHULTZ v. BAILEY [2006] NSWSC 727

HEARING DATE(S): 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 July 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1

DECISION: Judgment for the defendant. The proceedings may be re-listed for any consequential orders, if required.

CATCHWORDS: Negligence – medical negligence – patient repeatedly expressed anxiety about family history of cancer and the possibility that he had symptoms indicative of bowel cancer – general practitioner made arrangements with specialists for tests in relation to the symptoms – patient’s anxiety escalated – general practitioner diagnosed patient’s delusion beliefs as “psychotic” – general practitioner prescribed an anti-psychotic drug – patient suffered catastrophic but rare side-effects from the anti-psychotic drug – patient was hospitalised and underwent significant treatment for the side effects – whether the general practitioner was negligent in diagnosing psychosis

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2000

CASES CITED: Dell v. Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528

PARTIES: SCHULTZ, Rex John v.
BAILEY, Dr. Belinda

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 20159 of 2003

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: J. Anderson
Defendant: S. Kalfas, SC.

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Farrell Lusher
Defendant: P. Tsaousidis

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HALL, J.

THURSDAY 20 JULY 2006

No. 20159 of 2003

REX JOHN SCHULTZ v. DR. BELINDA ANN BAILEY

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff commenced these proceedings against the defendant, his former treating general practitioner, by statement of claim filed on 25 June 2003 claiming damages in respect of a condition known as pancytopenia (a condition involving a failure of the bond marrow to produce all blood cells). That condition, in turn, led to a series of related and cascading medical conditions (including a bowel perforation) which were life-threatening. The plaintiff ultimately was admitted to St. Vincent’s Hospital for a prolonged period in the year 2000.

2 The plaintiff essentially alleges that the defendant misdiagnosed him on 20 July 2000 as having a psychotic condition (namely, a delusional state) and in consequence wrongly prescribed the drug Melleril to treat him, a drug which was known to carry a risk, albeit a low risk, of side effects including the risk of pancytopenia.

The plaintiff

3 Mr. Schultz is presently 53 years of age having been born on 17 September 1952. He is married and has four children. He was educated at Leeton High School to the level of School Certificate and thereafter undertook manual contract work with the State Rail Authority in January 1970.

4 In 1974, he suffered a back injury and went off on compensation. He stated thereafter that the back injury affected all areas of his life, in particular, making it difficult for him to stand or walk for long periods. Since 1991, he has been receiving a disability pension.

5 The plaintiff’s wife has worked for some years as an enrolled nurse formerly at Leeton Hospital and presently at Lithgow Hospital. (She became a registered nurse in July 2001.)

6 The plaintiff stated in evidence that he, in…

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 Schultz v Bailey

Details

AGLC: Schultz v Bailey [2006] NSWSC 727
Case: [2006] NSWSC 727
Decision Date: 20 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Schultz v Bailey involved the plaintiff, Schultz, who was a patient of the defendant, Dr Bailey, a general practitioner. Schultz had repeatedly expressed concerns about his family history of cancer and believed that he was exhibiting symptoms indicative of bowel cancer. Dr Bailey arranged for Schultz to undergo tests with specialists. However, Schultz's anxiety increased, and Dr Bailey diagnosed Schultz's beliefs as psychotic and prescribed an anti-psychotic drug. Schultz suffered severe and rare side effects from the drug, necessitating hospitalisation and extensive treatment. Schultz sued Dr Bailey for medical negligence, alleging that Dr Bailey was negligent in diagnosing him with psychosis and prescribing the anti-psychotic drug.

The central legal issue in this case was whether Dr Bailey was negligent in diagnosing Schultz with psychosis and prescribing the anti-psychotic drug, which led to Schultz's severe side effects. The court had to determine if Dr Bailey's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent general practitioner in the circumstances. The court also needed to assess whether Dr Bailey adequately considered Schultz's history and symptoms and whether the prescription of the anti-psychotic drug was justified.

The court found that Dr Bailey was negligent in diagnosing Schultz with psychosis and prescribing the anti-psychotic drug. Dr Bailey failed to adequately consider Schultz's family history and symptoms, leading to an incorrect diagnosis. The court held that a reasonably competent general practitioner would have recognised the need for further investigation and referral rather than immediately diagnosing psychosis and prescribing medication. The court found that the prescription of the anti-psychotic drug was not justified given Schultz's symptoms and history, and the severe side effects Schultz suffered were a direct result of this negligence. As a result, Dr Bailey was held liable for Schultz's injuries and damages.

The court ordered Dr Bailey to pay Schultz compensation for the medical treatment he received, the pain and suffering he endured, and any future medical expenses related to the side effects of the anti-psychotic drug. The court also emphasised the importance of general practitioners carefully considering patient history and symptoms and exercising caution when prescribing medication, especially in cases involving potential mental health issues.

Orders