What happened
The patient underwent a left hip replacement for osteoarthritis in 2011 and subsequently reported unequal leg lengths and discomfort. Revision surgery measured a true discrepancy of 1 cm and corrected it by replacing the femoral component with a smaller one. The surgeon acknowledged in hindsight that his original choice of component size had been mistaken, while maintaining that his testing and judgment were reasonable at the time.
The issues
The main issue was whether the evidence established a departure from reasonable surgical care, beyond the adverse result and the surgeon's retrospective concession. The court also considered whether revision should have been delayed and whether the peer professional opinion provisions in s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 applied.
The court's decision
The court rejected expert assumptions that inappropriate tissue tension or hip tightness must have been detectable during the first operation. It also accepted the clinical reasons for earlier revision, including worsening pain, difficulty coping and the risks of later surgery, and upheld the s 5O case. A late application to add an inherent-risk plea under s 5I was nevertheless refused because of prejudice to the patient, with separate costs consequences and an exception for the concurrent expert evidence.
Understanding the figures
No damages were awarded to the patient. AUD 265,440.75 was an alternative assessment on the assumption that liability had been established, not a judgment sum payable to her. Costs were governed by the separate orders and their exceptions.
What this case shows
The decision distinguishes retrospective recognition of a mistake from proof of a breach assessed in the circumstances of the operation. Expert criticism needed factual foundations suited to the surgical approach and equipment, while disagreement among practitioners did not itself establish negligent clinical judgment.
Why another case may differ
The failure-to-warn case was expressly abandoned, so the judgment does not determine the adequacy of risk disclosure. Although the reasons generally describe revision as occurring at six weeks, the recorded operation dates are 2 August and 23 September 2011. The result rests on this patient's operative and expert evidence and does not excuse every postoperative leg-length discrepancy.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →