State Tribunal Grant Surgeon a Professional Lifeline

Recent media releases have publicised our State Administrative Tribunal's recent decision, granting Dr Michael McGushin, former Kalgoorlie surgeon, a career lifeline, despite finding that he was grossly careless in his care of several patients, 1 of whom at least, died as a result.

Judge Chaney accepted that McGushin's gross carelessness was not due to technical incompetence, but to his clinical decision-making and patient management.  

I doubt this is cause for great comfort.  I would have thought that clinical decision making and "patient management" (whatever this was intended to mean) are more intangible qualities and harder to learn/hone than technical skills.  

The case in which his patient died, concerned Dr McGushin's decision to operate on the patient to remove their gall bladder when he knew the patient was at increased risk of bleeding, yet he did not wait until a supply of platelets was available.  He did not examine the patient, review their notes or test results.  The patient bled during the operation and subsequently died.

I suppose Judge Chaney was convinced that with the ongoing supervision he has ordered, that this sort of risk-taking care will not recur.  This strikes me as very, very generous indeed.  Presumably Judge Chaney was persuaded by Dr McGushin's current 'mentor's' evidence as to improvements in his approach, while now working under supervision at 2 of Perth's leading public hospitals.

 

Our firm presently is handling 2 cases concerning Dr McGushin's surgical care, whilst practising in Kalgoorlie.

Patient Responsibility - International Differences Highlighted by Recent Case

I was interested to read recent news reports concerning a case decided in Canada. An Indian/Canadian man, Mr Kahlong was awarded CAD $5 million in a claim against a Hospital in Vancouver.

According to news reports, Mr Kahlong who was 41 years of age suffered from low back pain for which he was referred for a CT scan. The CT scan demonstrated some abnormalities and the radiologist asked Mr Kahlong to return for a follow up scan. Mr Kahlong failed to heed this advice believing for some reason that his pain would go away on its own. In actual fact Mr Kahlong was suffering from spinal tuberculosis which was a progressive condition, ultimately resulting in profound cognitive impairment and disability.

The British Columbian Supreme Court found the Hospital at which the radiologist was working to have been negligent. They found he should have, but did not, promptly provide a written report upon the initial abnormal CT scan. The Court decided that had such report been prepared (and presumably provided to the treating practitioner etc.) it would have lead to a chain of enquiry which would have resulted in diagnosis of Mr Kahlong's condition.

The Court decided (understandably) that Mr Kahlong was also negligent by failing to follow the radiologist’s advice to return (known as contributory negligence).

The consequence of deciding there was contributory negligence is that the patient’s damages are reduced by the percentage by which his own negligence is decided to have contributed to his injury. In Mr Kahlong’s case, he was decided to be 30% at fault and so he lost 30% of his compensation.

I have to say that this seems from the news report, to have been a very generous decision from Mr Kahlong’s perspective. My expectation would be that if such a case was presented before our Courts, it would be far more likely the case would have failed entirely. I think it likely our Court would conclude that it was the patient’s negligence in failing to follow the radiologist’s advice that led to the non-diagnosis.

Alternatively, I would have expected a significantly greater percentage of negligence to be found on the part of the patient.

Blogging and Other Lawyer's Promotional Tools

Some may see a blog as a crappy form of self-promotion for lawyers.  I hope they're in the minority.  The beauty of this form of media is - you can let me know if you think so!

On the other hand, it is true that sometimes legal advertising leaves any semblance of good taste far behind.  For non-US readers, it will come as no surprise, this originates in the home of apple pies, baseball and Arnie as Governor,. Click and enjoy

Julian (the Hammer??!) Johnson

Surgery-Tourism - the Pitfalls?

We are presently acting for a young women who paid $1,000s for cosmetic breast surgery in a well known Asian holiday destination, only for a terrible outcome.

This idea of "cosmetic surgery-tourism" seems on the increase, which I think is worrying.  My concerns are reinforced given the independent plastic surgeon's advice we have now received concerning the standard of advice and surgery our client received in this case.

Not that I am an expert, but anyone contemplating this sort of combination of a holiday and cosmetic surgery, should seek a local surgeon's advice.  Based on this case, it is not a comparison between apples and apples (unless one of them is rotten!) and any potential costs savings need to be carefully considered !

Too Much Passion???

It is impossible to avoid getting emotionally involved and passionate in the course of presenting a client's case that you believe in.  This is a good thing.  Belief in a client's case is critical if a lawyer is to present the case convincingly.  Passion about the outcome leads to that extra bit of preparation or thought, that may make the difference.

On the other hand, this can go too far and an obvious trap, when the Judge does not seem swayed by argument, is to exaggerate or overstate the facts or strength of the argument.  The temptation to do this must be resisted.  A critical advantage is gained by the lawyer who has the Judge's trust that they can be relied upon to accurately assist the court by pointing out the true strengths and weaknesses of the evidence.

It doesn't seem that this view was held by a lawyer for the unfortunate Mr. Whittenburg, presenting a case in the US, in Oklahoma.  The US Court of Appeal concluded:

"We are compelled to reverse and remand for a new trial because of pervasive and improper remarks by Mr. Whittenburg’s counsel in closing argument to the jury. Counsel spent the bulk of his argument placing before the jury fictitious admissions never uttered by defendants and launching vituperative and unprovoked attacks on defendants and their counsel."  

Not sure what "vituperative" is, but guess its not a good thing....

Thanks to John Day, who's blog is always worth a read to learn about this area of practice, over the Pacific for this report.