Queensland v MassonCitation:[2020] HCA 28Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:13 Aug 2020Case Number:B63/2019Read more

Queensland v MassonCitation:[2020] HCA 28Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle, Gordon JJDate:13 Aug 2020Case Number:B63/2019Read more

The decision to administer IV salbutamol rather than IV adrenaline did not fall below the standard of care expected of an ordinary skilled intensive care paramedic, as the CPM required only that IV adrenaline be considered, and the clinical judgment was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion.

Parties
Plaintiff: [Plaintiff Name Unspecified]; Defendant: [Defendant Name Unspecified]
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Negligence / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Breach of Duty, Clinical Judgment, Emergency Medicine
Tort Law Medical Negligence Standard of Care Breach of Duty Clinical Judgment Emergency Medicine

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[Plaintiff Name Unspecified]

Plaintiff

[Defendant Name Unspecified]

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intensive care paramedic's decision to administer IV salbutamol instead of IV adrenaline was contrary to the Clinical Practice Manual (CPM)
  2. 2 Whether the treatment fell below the standard of care expected of an ordinary skilled intensive care paramedic
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's finding regarding clinical judgment was contrary to compelling inferences or glaringly improbable

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to administer IV salbutamol rather than IV adrenaline did not fall below the standard of care expected of an ordinary skilled intensive care paramedic, as the CPM required only that IV adrenaline be considered, and the clinical judgment was supported by a responsible body of medical opinion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent is entitled to costs.