Negligence Claim Against Private Hospital Settles for $1.5 Million

Proceedings were commenced against the Private Hospital in the Supreme Court of NSW. In order to prepare this matter for hearing a vast number of expert reports were required. We initially required reports from an Emergency Physician addressing what assessments and investigations should have been conducted at the time that our client arrived at hospital. Secondly, we required expert evidence from a Neurologist, outlining what an attending  Neurologist should have arranged by way of examinations and investigations (e.g.: radiological investigations). Thirdly, we required expert opinions from Neurosurgeons commenting on whether those investigations had of been conducted (as recommended by the Neurologist). 

The Hospital’s response was to deny any liability and in fact suggest that they were not the proper defendant, but rather, the individual attending doctors.

The defendant Hospital obtained evidence that was in direct conflict with our experts, despite this the Hospital indicated that they were prepared to consider an informal settlement between the parties. Accordingly, a Mediation was arranged. Unfortunately, the representatives for the Hospital used the opportunity to emphasise their view that we should join additional defendants in the proceedings.

We maintained our stance and asserted that the attending doctors would be seen by the Court as employees of the Hospital. While these arguments were ongoing between the parties, we had obtained a number of reports addressing our client’s ongoing injuries, her need for high-level care for the remainder of her life, and her significant loss of income.

Essentially there was no disagreement between the parties as to our client’s injuries, the main issues between the parties were whether our client’s injuries were a result of the delay in treatment (noting that the evidence suggested that she had suffered a stroke prior to her arrival).  

Our expert evidence indicated that our client, while likely to have suffered some ongoing physical disability, would not have required such a high level of care. The matter was listed for hearing in February 2021 for a 2-week hearing.  The court directed the parties to participate in a Mediation prior to the commencement of the hearing. 

At the Mediation there was a significant dispute between the Hospital and the doctors against which the Hospital had made cross-claims against.  Further, the ongoing issue between the parties as to precisely what could be attributed to the delay of treatment of 36 hours.