Whilst we have all no doubt experienced a fear of sitting an exam at some stage, is a phobia of sitting a College entrance exam a disability? 

An employee of an area health service in Queensland recently sought the court’s leave to appeal a decision in which he failed to establish that blood and urine samples collected from him without his consent causing a psychiatric injury. 

In this recent Supreme Court of NSW application [Eastbury v  Genea Limited (formerly known as Sydney IVF Limited) [2017] NSWSC 1289], Dr Curtotti, the second defendant, sought orders concerning the admissibility and use of portions of an expert report served by Genea, in advance of the trial pursuant to s192A of the Evidence Act 1995.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision that the plaintiff ‘s claim failed as he failed to establish that the advice provided on discharge for a period of leave, or the lack thereof, was causally related to his subsequent attempt to commit suicide and consequential hypoxic brain injury.

Whilst not a medical negligence case, this interlocutory decision of the Supreme Court of NSW (Odell v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 643)  provides some important reminders in relation to limitation issues in mental harm claims.

In a recent Supreme Court of NSW decision, the plaintiff was successful in his claim against an orthopaedic surgeon an anaesthetist in relation to paraplegia suffered during surgery to correct a spinal deformity. The plaintiff was awarded a sum in excess of $3.8M plus legal costs.

On 17 March 2017, the AMA releases its revised Code of Ethics (view here). The 2004 Code of Ethics was last updated in 2006.

The Professional Standards Committee of the Medical Council of NSW found a medical practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct for allowing a visiting surgeon to operate without being registered to practise in NSW.

The Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) was recently required to consider whether a Local Health District (LHD) had standing to make an application seeking a guardianship order in respect of an in-patient (NEJ [2017] NSWCATGD 1).

A recent coroner’s inquest into the death of a RANZCOG trainee from an accidental overdose of intravenous drugs, including propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, has highlighted the problem of diversion of drugs of addiction from hospitals. The inquest also highlighted a number of other issues which are of relevance to hospitals and doctors.

These Supreme Court of NSW proceedings relate to an alleged failure to diagnose a melanoma on the sole of the foot while the patient received treatment for a plantar wart.

The Victorian Court of Appeal in Redzepovic dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a trial judge’s finding in favour of the respondent. The facts of this case are unremarkable however, are worth noting in relation to issues which arise with self-represented litigants.

A recent Supreme Court case which concerned allegation of defamation (reported here on 26 September 2016) also raised the important issue of whether the sending of an email by a paediatrician was a breach of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). 

A recent decision in the Supreme Court was required to consider whether a paediatrician and health service, being vicariously liable for the paediatrician, had defamed a director of a company or engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.