What happened
Ms Polsen developed an intra-abdominal haematoma after sleeve gastrectomy in 2013 and was discharged on the third postoperative day. She was readmitted six days later with an infected haematoma and suffered further complications. After a wide-ranging trial dismissed her claims, the appeal focused on the discharge decision under s 5O.
The issues
The issue was whether the peer opinions supporting the treatment addressed the conduct and facts actually established. The appeal also challenged the treatment of complaints about examination and discharge advice, and whether the judge had to rank the relative merits of the competing experts.
The court's decision
The Court upheld the s 5O conclusion by reference to the condition and records available when discharge was authorised. The new examination criticism lacked evidential support, and inadequate discharge advice had not been properly raised and tried. The appeal was dismissed with costs; further grounds concerning causation and inherent risk did not need determination.
What this case shows
The existence of another respectable treatment approach does not itself defeat a finding of widely accepted competent practice. The expert evidence must still address the actual conduct and established facts, and the plaintiff must identify the conduct alleged to be negligent.
Why another case may differ
The decision does not approve every discharge involving a postoperative haematoma. It concerns 2013 practice, the clinical information then available and the case actually pleaded and tried. The Court did not establish a separate appellate holding under s 5I or a general causation rule, and awarded no damages.
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? →