What happened

Roberts underwent knee replacement surgery in Melbourne in 2012 after an earlier patellectomy. Pain and instability persisted, with substantial improvement after revision surgery in 2018. The parties disputed both the implant position and whether separate incidents in 2016 explained her symptoms.

The issues

The issues were whether the component's varus alignment and external rotation breached the required standard and caused the revision surgery and financial loss. The court also examined whether the surgeon had established the statutory professional-practice defence for this patient.

The court's decision

The court found that the tibial component had been placed in eight degrees of varus and eight degrees of external rotation, without the precision required by her lack of a patella. It preferred implant malposition over trauma in 2016 as the cause of her symptoms. The parties were directed to prepare final orders after the damages assessment, with costs reserved.

Understanding the figures

The historical assessment totalled AUD $687,207, including $175,000 for non-economic loss and $120,000 for impaired future earning capacity. Interest, multiplier and arithmetic calculations remained open to adjustment before final orders; costs were reserved.

What this case shows

A generally accepted surgical approach did not answer the need to address a patient's particular vulnerability. The decision also shows how clinical history, revision findings and competing expert explanations can establish surgical causation.

Why another case may differ

Although decided in NSW, the treatment in Melbourne was governed by the Victorian Wrongs Act 1958. The findings concern practice in 2012 and this patient's unusual knee anatomy, rather than a universal alignment rule. The assessed total remained subject to calculation adjustments before final orders.

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? →