Walls v Lance - [2001] NSWSC 737

CITATION: Walls v Lance & Anor [2001] NSWSC 737

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11977 of 1993

HEARING DATE(S): 28 February, 1 - 2 March, 24 - 26 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 August 2001

PARTIES :

Cynthia Sarah Jane Walls (Plaintiff)
v
James Waldo Lance (First Defendant)
South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Malpass

COUNSEL : N/A (Plaintiff)
Mr D Davies SC (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: In Person (Plaintiff)
Lynn Boyd (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Plaintiff in person - professional medical negligence claim against specialist neurosurgeon and hospital - diagnosis - myelogram and subsequent treatment - no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s 80, s 144.

CASES CITED: Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538.
Bergman v Haertsch [2000] NSWSC 528.
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232.
Rogers v Whittaker (1992) 175 CLR 479.
Rosenberg v Percival [2001] HCA 18.

DECISION: See Paragraph 86.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER MALPASS

WEDNESDAY 29 AUGUST 2001
11977 of 1993 CYNTHIA SARAH JANE WALLS v JAMES WALDO LANCE & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1   For some time, the plaintiff has not been legally represented. She has appeared in person during the trial of these proceedings.
2   She brings a claim in professional negligence against two defendants. Further, she brings a claim founded on assault against the second defendant. Her claim is presently pleaded in the Fourth Further Amended Statement of Claim. The particulars of negligence may be found in paragraph 16 of this document. The particulars of injury are:-

“(a) Damage to the central nervous system

(b) Puncture of the spinal canal

(c) Pain and emotional sequelae

(d) Severe shock”

The injury referred to in (a) is presented as the principal injury. It has been described in terms of violently abnormal electrical activity throughout the whole of her body.

3   The first defendant is a medical specialist (neurologist). The second defendant is the body responsible for the operation and management of the Prince Henry Hospital (the Hospital).

4   The court has ordered that the questions of liability and quantum be tried separately. The court is presently concerned with the question of liability, the hearing of which has been expedited.

5   The plaintiff was born on 20 June 1953. She is not married. She is an arts graduate with honours in French. She has studied in France. She has partly completed a law course. Between 1976 and 1990, she worked in the media in a variety of jobs.

6   In 1984, she experienced symptoms in her right upper limb. There was numbness. There was severe neck pain. She has described this as chronic neck pain which persisted until about 1987. It was resolved by physiotherapy and/or yoga. The first defendant has recorded a history of weakness and pain in that limb when used excessively or when she was very tense. She has persisted with the view that these problems can be seen as…

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 Walls v Lance

Details

AGLC: Walls v Lance [2001] NSWSC 737
Case: [2001] NSWSC 737
Decision Date: 29 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walls v Lance involved a claim by the plaintiff, who appeared in person, against a specialist neurosurgeon and a hospital. The plaintiff alleged professional medical negligence arising from a diagnosis and subsequent treatment related to a myelogram. The case was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court. The crux of the matter was whether the defendant neurosurgeon and the hospital were negligent in their professional duties, and if so, whether this negligence led to harm for the plaintiff.

The court had to examine whether the defendants met the standard of care expected of a specialist neurosurgeon and a hospital in diagnosing and treating the plaintiff. This involved assessing whether the defendants correctly interpreted the myelogram results, the appropriateness of the subsequent treatment, and if there was any deviation from the accepted medical standards that caused the plaintiff's alleged harm. The court considered expert evidence and medical guidelines to evaluate these issues.

The court concluded that there was no fundamental question of principle involved in the case. The court found that the defendants had not breached the standard of care in their diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff. It was determined that the interpretation of the myelogram and the subsequent treatment provided were within the acceptable professional standards, and therefore, the defendants were not negligent. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed on the basis that no professional negligence was established.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed and that the defendants were to receive costs of the proceedings. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to medical standards and the rigorous scrutiny applied to claims of professional negligence in the medical field.

Orders