23 Sept 2014
The Court held there was no treatment injury because the specialist reasonably and confidently diagnosed a malignant testicular mass based on imaging and clinical findings, biopsy was not a feasible diagnostic option, and the testis required removal in any event due to ischaemia/necrosis; accordingly the operation was medically justified and consent was valid.
29 Aug 2008
Where surgical incisions were necessary parts of treatment, resulting scarring that is a natural and ordinary consequence of those incisions does not constitute a 'treatment injury' under section 32(1)(c) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001; therefore decline of cover was correct.
11 Jul 2008
Necessity for the purposes of s32 must be assessed by reference to the circumstances and clinical knowledge at the time of treatment; where the personal injury was a necessary part or ordinary consequence of treatment on that basis, s32 does not provide cover even if later tissue analysis shows the procedure was unnecessary in hindsight.