Dr Ibrahim v Arkell [1999] NSWCA 95

Dr Ibrahim v Arkell [1999] NSWCA 95

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to find that the respondent probably had active ulcerative colitis at the time of surgery, that this condition increased the risk of secondary post-operative haemorrhage, that the appellant did not warn the respondent of any increased risk related to ulcerative colitis, and that the respondent would not have undergone the haemorrhoidectomy on 19 October 1992 if properly warned; the respondent's anal stenosis resulted from the operation and the failure to provide the information needed for an informed decision was sufficient for liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Appeal / Appeal From District Court Damages Verdict
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['failure to Warn' 'haemorrhoidectomy' 'ulcerative Colitis' 'anal Stenosis' 'informed Consent' 'causation']
['tort Law' 'medical Negligence'] ['failure to Warn' 'haemorrhoidectomy' 'ulcerative Colitis' 'anal Stenosis' 'informed Consent' 'causation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Appeal / Appeal From District Court Damages Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was negligent in performing a haemorrhoidectomy while the respondent had active ulcerative colitis.' 'Whether the appellant failed to warn the respondent of the risk or increased risk of anal stenosis related to her ulcerative colitis.' 'Whether the respondent would have had the haemorrhoidectomy on 19 October 1992 if warned of the risk or increased risk.' "Whether the respondent's post-operative secondary bleeding and anal stenosis were caused by ulcerative colitis or by an ordinary surgical complication."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled to find that the respondent probably had active ulcerative colitis at the time of surgery, that this condition increased the risk of secondary post-operative haemorrhage, that the appellant did not warn the respondent of any increased risk related to ulcerative colitis, and that the respondent would not have undergone the haemorrhoidectomy on 19 October 1992 if properly warned; the respondent's anal stenosis resulted from the operation and the failure to provide the information needed for an informed decision was sufficient for liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed, with costs.']