The UK has recently altered its position in relation to the important question of a doctor’s obligations to warn their patients concerning risks of treatment.

Preceding the decision in Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, delivered on 11 March 2015, the UK had long maintained its acceptance of the so-called Bolam principle, reiterated

The High Court recently dismissed the special leave application brought in this case by Ms Paul, seeking to overturn the New South Wales Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting her claim.

As may be known, the case concerned a delay in diagnosis of an intracranial aneurysm suffered by Ms Paul. She underwent a head CT Scan

I note with interest the Court of Appeal’s decision in Nigam v Harm [2011] WASCA 211.

Whilst a case concerning a negligence action against a firm of solicitors, the important aspects of the case predominantly related to medical negligence claims.  

It was alleged the relevant firm of solicitors had been negligent in failing to:

Maintaining the sobering record of Plaintiff claims based on informed consent, is a recent South Australian case, Coombes v Katsaros [2011] SADC 93.

The claim concerned alleged complex regional pain syndrome ("CRPS") said to have arisen following hand surgery.

The key to the Plaintiff’s claim was his assertion that he ought to have been warned

 Judge Davis of the District Court rejected Ms Lentzner’s medical negligence claim against general surgeon, Max Baumwol, delivering her decision on 6 November 2009.

Ms Lentzner’s claim alleged that Mr Baumwol was negligent in the manner in which he sought to perform repair of bilateral inguinal hernias in 2003.  For an explanation of surgery (albeit

I noticed via a recent news release, that 2 Queensland women are pursuing medical negligence claims via Maurice Blackburn, Lawyers, against BreastScreen Queensland.

This follows the O’Gorman case in Sydney in late 2008. In that case Ms O’Gorman was successful against the New South Wales equivalent, BreastScreen NSW, which was found negligent in relation to a screening mammogram. Ms O’Gorman had breast cancer that should have been identified. By the time it was, her cancer had progressed. At the time of trial, she was given only a very short period to live.

As with O’Gorman, these new cases appear to arise from routine breast screening mammograms being read as normal, when it is alleged they were abnormal. In 1 of the 2 women’s cases, the delay in identification and treatment is alleged to have resulted in spread of her cancer such that she has been given 2 years to live.

Continue Reading BreastScreen – Litigation about Screening Mammograms