South Metropolitan Health Service v Westcott

The respondents commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the appellants, the South Metropolitan Health Service, alleging professional negligence in the care and treatment provided to the respondents. The respondents claimed that a radiologist breached a duty of care in misreporting CT imaging, which led to a delay in the diagnosis of appendicitis. The respondents further alleged that a colorectal surgeon was negligent in not operating earlier for what was thought to be appendicitis, resulting in an incisional hernia and other abdominal injuries. The primary judge found in favour of the respondents and awarded damages. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, which was then appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The appellants now appeal to the High Court.

The appeal required the court to determine whether the primary judge was correct to find that the radiologist breached a duty of care in misreporting CT imaging and whether the evidence supported the finding that the colorectal surgeon was negligent in not operating earlier for the alleged appendicitis. The appeal also required the court to determine whether the evidence supported the finding that the incisional hernia and certain other abdominal injuries were caused by the delayed surgical intervention.

The court held that the primary judge erred in finding that the radiologist breached a duty of care in misreporting CT imaging. The court held that the evidence did not support a finding that the radiologist was negligent. The court also held that the evidence did not support a finding that the colorectal surgeon was negligent in not operating earlier for the alleged appendicitis. The court further held that the evidence did not support a finding that the incisional hernia and certain other abdominal injuries were caused by the delayed surgical intervention. The court held that the appeal should be allowed and that the respondents' claims should be dismissed.

The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the respondents' claims.