Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service

The case of Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service involves an appeal by the appellant against the amount of damages awarded to him for injuries sustained during his treatment at a hospital operated by the respondent. The appellant argued for significantly higher damages, claiming the respondent's proposed care arrangement at a facility was unsuitable and that he wished to live independently. The court was required to determine if the primary judge erred in assessing the damages and whether the proposed care arrangement at the facility was a suitable alternative to care at the appellant's home.

The primary judge awarded damages based on providing enhanced care and therapy at a care facility, finding that the health benefits of such a model would be similar to those the appellant would receive if he resided in his own home. The judge found the appellant bore the onus to prove that the facility would not permit access to external therapists and care assistants. Additionally, the primary judge determined that the additional costs of care at the appellant's home were unreasonable compared to the negligible health benefits. The court reviewed these findings, particularly the reasonableness of the proposed care arrangement at the facility and the allocation of the burden of proof.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in concluding that additional care and therapy could be undertaken at the care facility as a suitable alternative to care in the appellant's home. The primary judge correctly considered the evidence and expert opinions and was not persuaded that the proposed model at the facility was unsuitable. The judge also appropriately allocated the burden of proof to the appellant to establish that access to external care assistants would not be permitted at the facility. The court concluded that the primary judge's assessment of the damages, considering the health benefits and costs, was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed subject to the primary judge's orders being amended to reflect the correct amount of damages. The parties were required to submit written submissions on costs by a specified date.