Stapley v Fisher - [2003] WADC 278

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: STAPLEY -v- FISHER [2003] WADC 278

CORAM: MARTINO DCJ

HEARD: 4-7 NOVEMBER 2003

DELIVERED : 17 DECEMBER 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 3150 of 2001

BETWEEN: GLENN ALLAN STAPLEY
Plaintiff
AND
PHILLIP FISHER
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Medical practitioner - Warning of risk of damage to vision in surgery - Whether patient would have undertaken surgery if adequately warned - Whether surgeon negligent in carrying out the surgery

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

No adequate warning given
Surgery would not have been undertaken if adequate warning had been given
No negligence in carrying out surgery

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr G Droppert
Defendant: Mr J R B Ley

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Hoffmans
Defendant: Clayton Utz

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434
Tai v Saxon, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960113; 8 February 1996

Case(s) also cited:

Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1980] 2 NSWLR 542

MARTINO DCJ:

Introduction

The plaintiff ("Mr Stapley") was born on 8 January 1970. He carries on a swimming pool retail supply business. From approximately early 1999 Mr Stapley developed pain down the left side of his face intermittently. He was prescribed antibiotics which remedied the problem temporarily. He found that he developed pressure under the left eye and pain in the left sinus and in a tooth on the left side when scuba diving. Mr Stapley had commenced that sport in approximately early 1998. He saw a dentist for the tooth pain. As a result of advice given to him by the dentist Mr Stapley saw his general medical practitioner who arranged a CT scan and referred him to the defendant ("Mr Fisher"). Mr Stapley decided to cease diving until the problem was resolved.
Mr Fisher is an ear, nose and throat surgeon. On 11 August 1999 Mr Fisher saw Mr Stapley in Mr Fisher's rooms. Mr Fisher spoke to Mr Stapley and carried out an examination on him. After seeing Mr Fisher, Mr Stapley decided to have surgery performed on his left sinus by Mr Fisher. The surgery was due to take place in September 1999, however due to an unrelated medical condition the surgery did not take place that month. Mr Fisher performed the surgery on 10 March 2000. When carrying out the surgery Mr Fisher found a polyp which he removed.
As a result of the surgery Mr Stapley suffered the following injuries:
1.Post‑operative double vision;
2.Disruption of the left orbital floor with associated displacement of the left orbital and left interior orbital muscles;
3.Lobulated soft tissue opacity adjacent to the left orbital floor on the antral side together with evidence of peri‑orbital emphysema;
4.Swelling and displacement of the left inferior oblique and inferior rectus muscles; and
5.Enophthalmos or falling back of the eye into the socket.
Mr Stapley required plastic surgical…

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 Stapley v Fisher

Details

AGLC: Stapley v Fisher [2003] WADC 278
Case: [2003] WADC 278
Decision Date: 17 DECEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stapley v Fisher involved a plaintiff, Stapley, who sought damages for negligence against the defendant, Fisher, a medical practitioner. The plaintiff alleged that Fisher failed to adequately warn her of the risk of vision loss associated with a cataract surgery, and that had she been properly informed, she would not have consented to the procedure. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Fisher was required to warn Stapley of the potential risks associated with the surgery, and if Fisher's failure to do so constituted negligence. The court had to determine the standard of care expected of a medical practitioner in warning patients of the risks inherent in elective surgery, and whether Fisher's conduct fell below this standard. Additionally, the court examined whether Stapley's decision to proceed with the surgery would have been different had she been properly informed of the risks, which was central to establishing causation in the negligence claim.

The court found that Fisher had a duty to inform Stapley of the risks associated with the surgery, and that this duty included the potential for vision loss. The court held that Fisher's failure to adequately warn Stapley about these risks constituted a breach of that duty. Furthermore, the court concluded that had Stapley been properly informed, she would likely have declined the surgery, establishing causation. Therefore, the court found Fisher negligent in carrying out the surgery without proper warning. As a result, Fisher was held liable for the damages claimed by Stapley. The court awarded Stapley compensation for the harm suffered as a consequence of the negligent surgery.

Orders