What happened

During the 2009 treatment, the plaintiff moved away from the heat after feeling discomfort but was repositioned beneath it. Hospital treatment and surgery followed, leaving permanent hair loss and sensitivity at the scar, with continuing difficulties in grooming and visiting hairdressers.

The issues

The assessment concerned non-economic loss under the Civil Liability Act 2002, including pain, cosmetic effects and distress. The court also examined whether the mother's assistance was required because of the injury and met the statutory duration and hours requirements for gratuitous care.

The court's decision

The court assessed non-economic loss at 25% of a most extreme case and accepted seven hours of injury-related care a week for about 36 weeks. Judgment and costs were awarded to the plaintiff, with the judgment balance after the medical refund directed to the NSW Trustee and Guardian until she reached adulthood.

Understanding the figures

The historical judgment total of AUD 40,887.28 comprised AUD 34,000 for non-economic loss, AUD 6,188.18 for past gratuitous care and AUD 699.10 for past expenses. AUD 39.10 was to be refunded to the Health Insurance Commission; costs were separate.

What this case shows

A scar that can be concealed may still have substantial daily effects through discomfort, embarrassment and changes to routine. The care award also shows the importance of identifying the actual tasks, hours and period of assistance rather than relying simply on the existence of family support.

Why another case may differ

This was a damages assessment following default judgment, with no appearance for the defendant, rather than a contested trial of negligence. The percentage assessment and care rates reflect the evidence and legislation applied in 2012 and do not establish a tariff for other scars or present awards.

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? →