Gulab Khan v Matthew Rathjen [2016] NSWDC 139

Gulab Khan v Matthew Rathjen [2016] NSWDC 139

The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care as a competent general practitioner. Given the history of a knife injury sustained by grabbing a knife during an armed robbery, the risk of permanent injury from an undiagnosed tendon injury was foreseeable and not insignificant. A reasonable general practitioner would have properly assessed the integrity of tendons, nerves and circulation, documented the findings, and referred the plaintiff to a hand surgeon or hospital emergency department. The defendant did not carry out the examination he claimed, failed to identify the likely FDP and FDS tendon injury, and failed to refer the plaintiff on 17 October 2011, with the breach...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $206,000.00.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care of General Practitioner' 'failure to Refer to Hand Surgeon or Emergency Department' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'peer Professional Opinion Defence Under S 5 O of the Civil Liability Act 2002' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'medical Negligence' 'civil Liability' 'workers Compensation Damages Interaction'] ['duty of Care of General Practitioner' 'failure to Refer to Hand Surgeon or Emergency Department' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'peer Professional Opinion Defence Under S 5 O of the Civil Liability Act 2002' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Civil Medical Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What occurred at the defendant's examinations of the plaintiff on 17 October 2011 and 25 October 2011." 'What occurred on 10 November 2011 at Five Dock Physiotherapy when the plaintiff was treated by Louise Tong.' 'Whether the defendant breached his duty of care to the plaintiff.' "Whether any breach of duty by the defendant was causative of the plaintiff's injuries." 'Whether the defence pleaded pursuant to s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 was made out.' 'What damages flowed from any proven negligence by the defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care as a competent general practitioner. Given the history of a knife injury sustained by grabbing a knife during an armed robbery, the risk of permanent injury from an undiagnosed tendon injury was foreseeable and not insignificant. A reasonable general practitioner would have properly assessed the integrity of tendons, nerves and circulation, documented the findings, and referred the plaintiff to a hand surgeon or hospital emergency department. The defendant did not carry out the examination he claimed, failed to identify the likely FDP and FDS tendon injury, and failed to refer the plaintiff on 17 October 2011, with the breach...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $206,000.00.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $206,000.00.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'The exhibits are to be returned forthwith.' "The parties are to have liberty to apply on 7 days' notice by way of Notice of Motion for any special costs...