Marko v Falk [2007] NSWSC 14
The defendant was not negligent in warning, advising, sequencing, grouping, or performing the endoscopic snare removal of the duodenal polyp; responsible professional opinion and clinical judgment support the defendant's actions and there is no proof of causation. The plaintiff has not established liability for negligence or breach of duty.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the defendant
- Legal Topics
- ['endoscopic Surgery' 'medical Warning' 'breach of Duty' 'standard of Care' 'failure to Warn' 'causation' 'damages']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Was the defendant negligent in performing the endoscopic snare removal of a duodenal polyp?' 'Did the defendant fail to adequately warn the plaintiff of risks, advise on alternatives, or breach duty in not reserving polyp removal for a later time?' 'Was there negligence in the technical performance of the surgery?' 'Did the sequencing or grouping of procedures breach duty, or cause injury?' 'Was causation established in respect of any breach?']
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant was not negligent in warning, advising, sequencing, grouping, or performing the endoscopic snare removal of the duodenal polyp; responsible professional opinion and clinical judgment support the defendant's actions and there is no proof of causation. The plaintiff has not established liability for negligence or breach of duty.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the defendant
Orders
- ['Verdict and judgment for the defendant' "The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs"]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment