El Khoury v Lee [2003] NSWLC 10

El Khoury v Lee [2003] NSWLC 10

Dr Lee breached his duty of care because, even if he gave some advice, he did not adequately convey to the plaintiff the necessity of urgently seeking specialist attention, the seriousness of the injury, the risk of significant permanent impairment if treatment was delayed, or confirm that the plaintiff understood that advice. The plaintiff suffered a real and permanent injury that probably would not have occurred had he been treated by a hand surgeon within 72 hours, but no economic loss was proved; general damages of $18,000 were awarded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim in Negligence / Medical Negligence / Reasons for Decision and Verdict After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the Plaintiff in the sum of $18,000 and judgment accordingly.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care of General Practitioner' 'referral for Urgent Specialist Treatment' 'adequacy of Medical Advice' 'prior Consistent Statement' 'damages for Personal Injury']
['negligence' 'medical Negligence' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['duty of Care of General Practitioner' 'referral for Urgent Specialist Treatment' 'adequacy of Medical Advice' 'prior Consistent Statement' 'damages for Personal Injury']

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 Claim in Negligence / Medical Negligence / Reasons for Decision and Verdict After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dr Lee properly diagnosed and treated the plaintiff's finger injury and referred him for urgent specialist hand treatment." 'Whether Dr Lee adequately conveyed the urgency and risks of failing to obtain specialist treatment.' 'Whether failure to provide a referral letter or telephone Concord Hospital amounted to negligence.' 'If liability was established, what damages should be awarded, including alleged loss of opportunity to play professional rugby league and join the Police Force.']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Lee breached his duty of care because, even if he gave some advice, he did not adequately convey to the plaintiff the necessity of urgently seeking specialist attention, the seriousness of the injury, the risk of significant permanent impairment if treatment was delayed, or confirm that the plaintiff understood that advice. The plaintiff suffered a real and permanent injury that probably would not have occurred had he been treated by a hand surgeon within 72 hours, but no economic loss was proved; general damages of $18,000 were awarded.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the Plaintiff in the sum of $18,000 and judgment accordingly.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the Plaintiff in the sum of $18,000 and judgment accordingly.' 'Interest is to be calculated by the Registrar pursuant to s.39A of the Local Court (Civil Claims) Act from 29 March 1998.' 'Costs will follow the event in an amount to be agreed within 28 days or assessed.']