Melissa Reis v Emil Gayed [2024] NSWDC 269

Melissa Reis v Emil Gayed [2024] NSWDC 269

The Defendant breached his duty of care to the Plaintiff by performing medically unnecessary procedures; these acts caused the Plaintiff diagnosable psychiatric injury. Damages are to be awarded under the Civil Liability Act as s 3B (intentional act) is not engaged since subjective intent to injure was not proven. The claim is not statute-barred because the Plaintiff did not subjectively or objectively know all s 50D discoverability facts until less than three years before commencing proceedings, given her circumstances and psychiatric symptoms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff on the Civil Liability Act claim; Plaintiff's common law claim dismissed; Limitation defence fails.
Legal Topics
['civil Liability Act Application' 'limitation of Actions' 'intentional Acts in Medical Treatment' 'damages Quantification' 'causation in Psychiatric Injury']
['torts' 'medical Negligence' 'personal Injury'] ['civil Liability Act Application' 'limitation of Actions' 'intentional Acts in Medical Treatment' 'damages Quantification' 'causation in Psychiatric 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

Medical Negligence and Personal Injury Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Gayed breached his duty of care to the Plaintiff in the course of providing medical treatment in 2014;' 'Whether, and to what extent, the Plaintiff sustained damages (including psychiatric harm) as a result of that breach;' "Whether the Plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW);" "Whether Dr Gayed's conduct amounted to an 'intentional act' under s 3B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) such that the Act did not apply;" 'Proper quantification of damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant breached his duty of care to the Plaintiff by performing medically unnecessary procedures; these acts caused the Plaintiff diagnosable psychiatric injury. Damages are to be awarded under the Civil Liability Act as s 3B (intentional act) is not engaged since subjective intent to injure was not proven. The claim is not statute-barred because the Plaintiff did not subjectively or objectively know all s 50D discoverability facts until less than three years before commencing proceedings, given her circumstances and psychiatric symptoms.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff on the Civil Liability Act claim; Plaintiff's common law claim dismissed; Limitation defence fails.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Plaintiff in an amount to be agreed or assessed consistent with these reasons.' "The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff's costs." 'Parties are to bring in short minutes as to the quantification of the judgment consistent with the reasons, with provision for the Court to hear further argument if...