| Albrighton v RPA Hospital | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | NSW Court of Appeal |
| Decided | 29 September 1980 |
| Citation(s) | [1980] 2 NSWLR 542 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1979] 2 NSWLR 165 |
| Appealed from | Supreme Court of NSW |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Hope, Reynolds & Hutley JJA |
Albrighton v RPA Hospital, [1] is a tort law case concerning the application of the Bolam test for professional negligence.
Ms Albrighton ( née Zengin) was born with kyphoscoliosis and spina bifida which seriously impaired her respiratory function and shortened her life expectancy. In July 1971 she was admitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital for corrective surgery intended to straighten and lengthen her spine in a procedure known as halo-pelvic traction. [2] At the hospital she was treated by Dr Harry Tyer, an orthopaedic surgeon. The hospital's consultation sheet recorded on 23 July 1971 that "Dr Tyer would appreciate advice regarding significance of her hairy naevus with respect to spinal pathology and possible dangers to cord of correction of scoliosis by halo-pelvic traction." [3] : 169 The frame was attached to her skull and pelvis on 26 July 1971. On that day Professor Richard Gye, a neuro-surgeon, wrote on the consultation sheet "As she has had (just) traction I will see her later in the week." [3] : 169 A myelogram was not carried out prior to applying traction, which commenced on 28 July. On 30 July Ms Albrighton started showing signs of spinal cord involvement. By 1 August Ms Albrighton became unable to walk. All traction was stopped on 2 August, however her spinal cord was totally severed leaving her a paraplegic. Professor Gye saw Ms Albrighton on 2 August however the paraplegia was irrevocable.
In 1977 Ms Albrighton commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW, claiming that either or both of the doctors were negligent and the hospital was vicariously liable for their negligence. The case was heard before Yeldham J and a jury. [4] Yeldham J had allowed only part of the hospital medical records to be tendered. Neither Dr Tyer nor Professor Gye gave evidence. After 11 days of hearing Yeldham J directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants. [3] Yeldham J held that :
Reynolds JA rejected the proposition that doctors could not be negligent if they acted in accordance with the usual and customary practice and procedure in their “medical community”, holding that "it is not the law that, if all or most of the medical practitioners in Sydney habitually fail to take an available precaution to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to their patients, then none can be found guilty of negligence". [1] : 562–3
Reynolds JA held that the hospital had undertaken to provide for Ms Albrighton's complete medical care and to provide that service through staff chosen by the hospital. On that evidence a jury could find that the hospital had undertaken to take reasonable care to provide for her medical needs and that there was an overriding and continuing duty of care owed by the hospital, regardless of the legal duties imposed on the doctors. [1] : 561–2
Hutley JA held that the evidence of the hospital's Deputy Medical Records Administrator established that the whole of the hospital's records were written for the purposes of the hospital and that those records were "kept for the information of the staff and treating doctors. They are not likely repositories of the speculations of the inexpert; and this is a fact to be considered on their admissibility". Accordingly, the documents should have been admitted. [1] : 568 Similarly Hope JA held that the records were made by people who intended them to be as accurately as possible. While mistakes could occur they were likely to be far more reliable than human memory. [1] : 549
Reynolds JA held that on the evidence a jury could have found that Dr Tyer had some reservations about applying traction and knew that traction could endanger the integrity of Ms Albrighton's spinal cord. Despite those reservations Dr Tyer had applied traction without receiving any advice or any further diagnostic investigations. On this basis the jury could have found that Dr Tyer had been negligent. [1] : 554–6
Reynolds JA held that on 26 July 1971 Professor Gye ought to have been alerted to the possibility that the spinal cord had not developed properly and knew and accepted that the danger to her spinal cord would depend on his advice. This was enough to impose a duty of care on Professor Gye and the jury may have found that his failure to intervene was a breach of his duty of care. [1] : 556–7
The Court of Appeal did not decide whether or not the hospital or doctors had been negligent and instead ordered that there be a new trial. [1] : 564–5 There is, however, no record of whether such a trial occurred nor its outcome.
The approach of the Court of Appeal was subsequently approved by the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker [6]
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 All ER 131 is an English tort law decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which has had a significant influence on the common law throughout the common law world.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. Bolam was rejected in the 2015 Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in matters of informed consent.
Anthony David Bland was a supporter of Liverpool F.C. injured in the Hillsborough disaster. He suffered severe brain damage that left him in a persistent vegetative state as a consequence of which the hospital, with the support of his parents, applied for a court order allowing him to "die with dignity". As a result, he became the first patient in English legal history to be allowed to die by the courts through the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment including food and water for the injuries.
In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.
In English tort law, there can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant establishes both that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that duty. The defendant is in breach of duty towards the claimant if their conduct fell short of the standard expected under the circumstances.
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.
Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; (2003) 215 CLR 1, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the tort of negligence in a medical context. It was held by a majority of the High Court that the negligent doctor could be held responsible for the costs of raising and maintaining a healthy child.
New York State Department of Health Code, Section 405, also known as the Libby Zion Law, is a regulation that limits the amount of resident physicians' work in New York State hospitals to roughly 80 hours per week. The law was named after Libby Zion, who died in 1984 at the age of 18 under the care of what her father believed to be overworked resident physicians and intern physicians. In July 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education adopted similar regulations for all accredited medical training institutions in the United States.
Arseculeratne v. Priyani Soysa is a landmark and controversial case of alleged medical malpractice in Sri Lanka. Apart from being the first such case in recent times, it is also unique because the principal parties to the case were well known professionals of the country - lawyer Rienzie Arseculeratne (Plaintiff) and Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics, Priyani Soysa (Defendant).
R v Quick [1973] QB 910 is an English criminal case, as to sane automatism and the sub-category of self-inducement of such a state. The court ruled that it may not be used as a defence if the defendant's loss of self-control was on the part of negligence in consuming or not consuming something which someone ought to but the jury must be properly directed so as to make all relevant findings of fact. The ruling stresses that automatism is usually easily distinct from insanity, in the few cases where the lines are blurred it is a complex problem for prosecutors and mental health professionals.
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 is an English criminal law case establishing the role of the jury in finding liability for death, where subsequent medical negligence occurs following the original injury. The Court of Appeal found that the jury did not have to weigh up different causes of death, and need only be satisfied that the defendant's actions made a "significant contribution" to the victim's death.
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 is an important House of Lords case in English tort law, specifically medical negligence, concerning the duty of a surgeon to inform a patient of the risks before undergoing an operation.
F v R, is a tort law case. It is a seminal case on what information medical professionals have a duty to inform patients of at common law.
Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1996] 4 All ER 771 is an important English tort law case, on the standard of care required by medical specialists. It follows the Bolam test for professional negligence, and addresses the interaction with the concept of causation.
Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority [1985] 1 All ER 635 is an English tort law case concerning the Bolam test for professional negligence.
Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920 is a judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, dealing with liability of children under English law of negligence. The question in the case was what standard of behaviour could be expected of a child.
Wrongful birth is a legal cause of action in some common law countries in which the parents of a congenitally diseased child claim that their doctor failed to properly warn of their risk of conceiving or giving birth to a child with serious genetic or congenital abnormalities. Thus, the plaintiffs claim, the defendant prevented them from making a truly informed decision as to whether or not to have the child. Wrongful birth is a type of medical malpractice tort. It is distinguished from wrongful life, in which the child sues the doctor.
Landeros v. Flood was a 1976 court case in the state of California involving child abuse and alleged medical malpractice.
The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.