Rhonda Ballard v Wendy Louise Cox & Anor [2006] NSWSC 252

Rhonda Ballard v Wendy Louise Cox & Anor [2006] NSWSC 252

Dr Cox breached her duty of care by failing to attend after being told of meconium and decelerations at about 10:30pm, failing to examine the whole CTG trace when she arrived, electing to attempt forceps delivery rather than caesarean section, and performing the forceps delivery incompetently. The Hospital was liable because Sister Whitehead failed to notify Dr Cox of the continuing deterioration between 11:00pm and 4:00am; had she done so, a caesarean section would probably have occurred by about 2:00am and Spencer Cotie would have suffered no deficits. The basal ganglia injury was due to the forceps delivery, while the cortical injury was due to the prolonged intermittent hypoxia....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Negligence Proceedings for Damages Arising From Perinatal Asphyxia, Brain Damage and Cerebral Palsy, With Nervous Shock Claims and Cross Claims for Indemnity or Contribution / Hearing of Plaintiffs' Claims Against the Second Defendant and Defendants' Cross Claims After Settlements Between the Plaintiffs and the First Defendant
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the second defendant for the full amounts agreed to by the first defendant; liability apportioned 60% to the first defendant and 40% to the second defendant; consequential orders made.
Legal Topics
['obstetric Negligence' 'midwifery Negligence' 'perinatal Asphyxia' 'causation of Brain Injury' 'forceps Delivery' 'caesarean Section' 'apportionment Between Defendants' 'nervous Shock']
['tort Law' 'negligence' 'medical Negligence' 'civil Liability' 'contribution and Apportionment'] ['obstetric Negligence' 'midwifery Negligence' 'perinatal Asphyxia' 'causation of Brain Injury' 'forceps Delivery' 'caesarean Section' 'apportionment Between Defendants' 'nervous Shock']

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

Negligence Proceedings for Damages Arising From Perinatal Asphyxia, Brain Damage and Cerebral Palsy, With Nervous Shock Claims and Cross Claims for Indemnity or Contribution / Hearing of Plaintiffs' Claims Against the Second Defendant and Defendants' Cross Claims After Settlements Between the Plaintiffs and the First Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Cox breached her duty of care by failing to attend after being called at about 10:30pm, failing to review the whole CTG trace, attempting forceps delivery rather than caesarean section, and performing the forceps delivery incompetently.' 'Whether the Hospital, through Sister Whitehead, breached its duty of care by failing to notify Dr Cox of the continuing deterioration in the foetal condition between about 11:00pm and 4:00am.' "Whether the breaches caused Spencer Cotie's basal ganglia and cortical brain injuries and resulting cerebral palsy." 'How responsibility for the damage should be apportioned between the first defendant and the second defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Dr Cox breached her duty of care by failing to attend after being told of meconium and decelerations at about 10:30pm, failing to examine the whole CTG trace when she arrived, electing to attempt forceps delivery rather than caesarean section, and performing the forceps delivery incompetently. The Hospital was liable because Sister Whitehead failed to notify Dr Cox of the continuing deterioration between 11:00pm and 4:00am; had she done so, a caesarean section would probably have occurred by about 2:00am and Spencer Cotie would have suffered no deficits. The basal ganglia injury was due to the forceps delivery, while the cortical injury was due to the prolonged intermittent hypoxia....

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the second defendant for the full amounts agreed to by the first defendant; liability apportioned 60% to the first defendant and 40% to the second defendant; consequential orders made.

Orders

  • ['In 20435/01, direct entry of judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $8,750,000.' "In 20435/01, order the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'In 20435/01, on the First Cross-Claim, direct entry of judgment for the First Cross-Claimant against the First Cross-Defendant in...