SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Papa v Sullivan Nicolaides Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 364
PARTIES:
ANTOINETTE PAPA
(plaintiff)v
SULLIVAN NICOLAIDES PTY LTD
ACN 078 202 196
(defendant)FILE NO/S:
BS 1588 of 2005
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
24 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 April 2009 – 24 April 2009;
Further submissions received 30 April 2010JUDGE:
Daubney J
ORDER:
1. There will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $2,201,982.00.
2. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS – LIABILITY IN TORT – DUTY TO WARN OF RISKS – where the plaintiff patient had a mechanical heart valve – where as a consequence of this the plaintiff had to take anti-coagulant medication, Warfarin, for the rest of her life – where the levels of Warfarin in the blood needed to be monitored to ensure they remained within an appropriate range – where there were serious risks of blood clots and stroke when the levels of Warfarin dropped below the target range – where there were serious risks of bleeding when the levels of Warfarin were above the target range – where the defendant firm of specialist medical pathologists monitored the plaintiff - where the plaintiff had five blood tests within 12 days showing her Warfarin level was below the target range – where the defendant advised the plaintiff and her general practitioner that they would no longer be monitoring her Warfarin levels – where the defendant did not tell the plaintiff, her general practitioner or her cardiologist that her Warfarin levels were below the target range – where the plaintiff suffered a stroke – whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff
CSR Limited v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1, cited
Nicholson v Nicholson (No 2) (1994) 35 NSWLR 308, cited
Manning v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 958, cited
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479, applied
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434, applied
Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12, citedVairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422, applied
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485, citedCOUNSEL:
ME Eliadis with J McClymont for the plaintiff
SC Williams QC with KA Barlow for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
Clayton Utz Lawyers for the defendant
The plaintiff, who was born on 28 May 1956, suffered from mitral incompetence, i.e. a leaking valve between the left atrium and left ventricle in her heart. On
11 July 2001, she underwent surgery for this condition by a procedure known as a mitral valve replacement, in which an artificial mechanical valve was inserted in her heart.
A consequence of the insertion of this mechanical valve was that it became necessary for the plaintiff to take anti-coagulant medication for the rest of her…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Sullivan Nicolaides Pty Ltd v Papa and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] QSC 364
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the defendant did breach its duty of care to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant had a duty of care to warn the plaintiff that her Warfarin levels were below the target range because it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer harm if she was not warned. The court found that the defendant breached this duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff, her general practitioner and her cardiologist that her Warfarin levels were below the target range. The court found that the defendant’s breach of duty of care caused the plaintiff’s stroke. The court awarded the plaintiff $2,201,982.00 in damages. The court will hear the parties as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. There will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $2,201,982.00.
2. I will hear the parties as to costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.