What happened
After breast surgery in March 2000, Wolf developed fever overnight before her planned discharge, prompting the resident doctor to request that the surgeon be informed. On receiving a nurse's call after the temperature had partly subsided, the surgeon authorised discharge without personally examining her. Infection later caused lasting injury, and the trial judge found that delayed discharge and treatment would probably have prevented that outcome.
The issues
The surgeon challenged findings about both the preoperative warnings and the decision to discharge. Causation turned partly on whether testing could have identified the infection in time to prevent irreversible damage. The appeal also challenged quantum and the Bullock order covering costs owed by the patient to the successfully defended hospital.
The court's decision
Considering the information supplied to the patient as a whole, the Court rejected the finding of negligent warnings. It nevertheless upheld the finding that discharge without examination was negligent and that timely testing and treatment would probably have avoided the injury. The full damages award and Bullock costs order stood, and the surgeon's appeal was dismissed with costs.
Understanding the figures
The trial damages of AUD 292,536.78, including AUD 200,000 in general damages, were upheld at their historical amounts. The hospital-related costs order and appeal costs were separate; the judgment does not establish the plaintiff's ultimate cash receipt.
What this case shows
The decision separates informed-consent issues from postoperative clinical care. Success on one alleged breach did not defeat liability where another breach caused the same loss. The causation analysis depended on the availability of earlier indicative test results, rather than assuming that treatment had to await a final culture.
Why another case may differ
This was not a rule that every postoperative fever prohibits discharge. It was a common-law medical negligence case concerning treatment in 2000, decided on the symptoms, communications, competing expert evidence and opportunities for testing and treatment. The hospital claim and cross-claims had been dismissed, so the surgeon's unsuccessful appeal does not establish negligence by the hospital.
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? →