What happened
The radiologist admitted negligently missing an aneurysm on a 2003 angiogram. After diagnosis in 2006, the patient received appropriate advice and chose coiling, during which the aneurysm ruptured without negligence by the operating practitioners and caused serious disability. The aneurysm had not deteriorated during the delay, and an earlier diagnosis would also have led to a procedure carrying inherent risks.
The issues
The issue was whether the probability that earlier treatment would have avoided this particular injury was sufficient to establish liability. The court examined s 5I of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and the distinction in s 5D between factual causation and the appropriate scope of liability.
The court's decision
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that the injury resulted from an unavoidable risk of the chosen procedure and, alternatively, fell outside the scope of the radiologist's liability for delayed diagnosis. On 14 February 2014, the High Court refused special leave to appeal with costs.
What this case shows
The case shows why breach and factual causation do not end the inquiry into liability for a particular injury. A delay that worsens disease or increases treatment risk presents a different question from the informed choice to undergo treatment of an unchanged condition here.
Why another case may differ
The result depends on the unusual agreed premise that the delay did not worsen the condition. Failure-to-warn cases and misdiagnoses leading to unnecessary treatment require different analysis. Refusal of special leave is distinct from a High Court judgment determining a merits appeal.
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? →