Goran Petrovic v Dr Anthony Johnson [2017] NSWDC 205

Goran Petrovic v Dr Anthony Johnson [2017] NSWDC 205

The plaintiff failed to prove breach or causation. The expert evidence established that, on the information available on 19 July 2012, referring the plaintiff to a cardiothoracic surgeon for assessment and possible surgery on the basis of a differential diagnosis of lung cancer was within widely accepted Australian peer professional opinion and was competent professional practice. The plaintiff's evidence about what the defendant advised was unreliable and confused, and did not prove that the defendant advised him that cancer was certain or advised him to undergo surgery. The evidence established that Associate Professor French independently advised and decided on the surgery, breaking...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['referral for Cardiothoracic Surgery' 'differential Diagnosis of Lung Cancer' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'peer Professional Opinion' 'causation' 'damages']
['medical Negligence' 'civil Liability' 'torts'] ['referral for Cardiothoracic Surgery' 'differential Diagnosis of Lung Cancer' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'peer Professional Opinion' 'causation' '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 ['Whether the defendant was negligent in referring the plaintiff to Associate Professor French on the basis of investigations conducted up to 19 July 2012 and a differential diagnosis of lung cancer rather than causing further investigations to be performed.' 'Whether the defendant failed to advise the plaintiff that the diagnosis of lung cancer was differential only and not certain and that further investigations might be conducted before referral to a specialist cardiothoracic surgeon.' 'If breach was established, whether the plaintiff would have undergone the surgery in any event.' "Whether any breach was causative of the plaintiff's claimed loss." 'What loss and compensation, if any, flowed from the surgery.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove breach or causation. The expert evidence established that, on the information available on 19 July 2012, referring the plaintiff to a cardiothoracic surgeon for assessment and possible surgery on the basis of a differential diagnosis of lung cancer was within widely accepted Australian peer professional opinion and was competent professional practice. The plaintiff's evidence about what the defendant advised was unreliable and confused, and did not prove that the defendant advised him that cancer was certain or advised him to undergo surgery. The evidence established that Associate Professor French independently advised and decided on the surgery, breaking...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.' "Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs."]