AMA VICDOC Summer 2024 - Magazine - Page 74
In 2023, bariatric surgeon, Dr Richard
Harrison successfully defended claims
of negligence brought by patient, Ms
Katrina Polsen. The alleged negligent
acts related to a laparoscopic sleeve
gastrectomy performed on 22 July
2013, at Calvary Hospital in Wagga
Wagga. Following the surgery, Ms
Polsen had an intra-abdominal bleed.
Several days later, after review and
investigations satisfied Dr Harrison that
her clinical condition was such that she
could be safely discharged, Ms Polsen
was discharged with written discharge
instructions. On 31 July 2013, Ms Polsen
was readmitted to hospital with an
infected intra-abdominal haematoma.
After treatment, when discharged in
September 2013, she was considered
to be well with no signs of sepsis.
Subsequently, there were a number
of further complications, including
intermittent infection and malnutrition,
and admissions to hospital, over a
number of years.
Ms Polsen brought proceedings
against Dr Harrison in 2016, seeking
damages for negligence and breach of
contract. The allegations included that
her pre and post operative treatment
by Dr Harrison did not meet the
standards widely accepted by peer
professional opinion as competent
professional practice pursuant to
section 5O of the Civil Liability Act
2002 (NSW) (the Act). Prior to the
trial, an expert conclave was ordered
consisting of eight experts who
produced a joint liability report
to be tendered as evidence.
74
AMA VI C TO RIA
After a lengthy trial, on 6 July 2023
the trial judge ultimately dismissed
the proceedings with costs awarded
in Dr Harrison’s favour. Ms Polsen
(hereinafter known as the appellant),
then filed a notice of appeal in the
New South Wales Supreme Court
of Appeal in October 2023.
The issues raised on appeal were
whether the trial judge erred in:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Rejecting evidence tendered
by the appellant’s experts as to
the adequacy of the discharge
information and advice given;
Placing on to the appellant the
onus to prove that Dr Harrison
(the respondent) had not
informed her of the extent
of her bleed and the symptoms
of infection;
Treating the lack of a hands-on
examination of the appellant
prior to discharge as immaterial;
Failing to prefer one set of
experts to the other; and
Not finding that the acceptability
of the respondent’s conduct was
conditional on a finding that
there was a failure to inform
the appellant and undertake
a hands-on examination.
