Monique Frances King v SESAHS & Anor [2005] NSWSC 305

Monique Frances King v SESAHS & Anor [2005] NSWSC 305

The first defendant breached its duty of care because information about IRS-III and its 1987 amendment, which should have been made available to those treating the plaintiff, was not provided to Professor O'Gorman-Hughes; that failure led at least to the prescribing and intrathecal administration of overdoses of cytosine arabinoside, which materially contributed to the plaintiff's myelopathy and quadriplegia. The first defendant was also liable because Actinomycin-D was administered in excess of both the amended IRS-III protocol and the dose prescribed by Professor O'Gorman-Hughes. Professor O'Gorman-Hughes was not in breach because he reasonably sought advice from the corresponding...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Action / Judgment on Liability; Damages Agreed
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant; judgment for the second defendant.
Legal Topics
['standard of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'duty to Warn' 'vicarious Liability' 'paediatric Oncology Treatment']
['tort Law' 'medical Negligence'] ['standard of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'duty to Warn' 'vicarious Liability' 'paediatric Oncology Treatment']

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 Action / Judgment on Liability; Damages Agreed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants breached their duty of care in prescribing and administering intrathecal chemotherapy and systemic chemotherapy to the plaintiff in 1989.' 'Whether the first defendant breached its duty by failing to make available or disseminate information about IRS-III and its 1987 amendment.' "Whether any breach materially contributed to the plaintiff's myelopathy and consequent quadriplegia." "Whether the defendants failed to warn the plaintiff's parents adequately of the risks of the proposed therapy, including paraplegia or quadriplegia."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant breached its duty of care because information about IRS-III and its 1987 amendment, which should have been made available to those treating the plaintiff, was not provided to Professor O'Gorman-Hughes; that failure led at least to the prescribing and intrathecal administration of overdoses of cytosine arabinoside, which materially contributed to the plaintiff's myelopathy and quadriplegia. The first defendant was also liable because Actinomycin-D was administered in excess of both the amended IRS-III protocol and the dose prescribed by Professor O'Gorman-Hughes. Professor O'Gorman-Hughes was not in breach because he reasonably sought advice from the corresponding...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant; judgment for the second defendant.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $7,000,000.' 'Judgment for the second defendant.' 'The first defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff and the second defendant.']