SCHULTZ v. BAILEY [2006] NSWSC 727

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : SCHULTZ v. BAILEY [2006] NSWSC 727

HEARING DATE(S) : 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 20 July 2006

JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Hall J at 1

DECISION : Judgment for the defendant. The proceedings may be re-listed for any consequential orders, if required.

CATCHWORDS : Negligence – medical negligence – patient repeatedly expressed anxiety about family history of cancer and the possibility that he had symptoms indicative of bowel cancer – general practitioner made arrangements with specialists for tests in relation to the symptoms – patient's anxiety escalated – general practitioner diagnosed patient's delusion beliefs as "psychotic" – general practitioner prescribed an anti-psychotic drug – patient suffered catastrophic but rare side-effects from the anti-psychotic drug – patient was hospitalised and underwent significant treatment for the side effects – whether the general practitioner was negligent in diagnosing psychosis

LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Liability Act 2000

CASES CITED : Dell v. Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528

PARTIES : SCHULTZ, Rex John v. BAILEY, Dr. Belinda

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC No. 20159 of 2003

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: J. Anderson Defendant: S. Kalfas, SC.

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Farrell Lusher Defendant: P. Tsaousidis

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HALL, J.

THURSDAY 20 JULY 2006

No. 20159 of 2003

REX JOHN SCHULTZ v. DR. BELINDA ANN BAILEY

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff commenced these proceedings against the defendant, his former treating general practitioner, by statement of claim filed on 25 June 2003 claiming damages in respect of a condition known as pancytopenia (a condition involving a failure of the bond marrow to produce all blood cells). That condition, in turn, led to a series of related and cascading medical conditions (including a bowel perforation) which were life-threatening. The plaintiff ultimately was admitted to St. Vincent's Hospital for a prolonged period in the year 2000. 2 The plaintiff essentially alleges that the defendant misdiagnosed him on 20 July 2000 as having a psychotic condition (namely, a delusional state) and in consequence wrongly prescribed the drug Melleril to treat him, a drug which was known to carry a risk, albeit a low risk, of side effects including the risk of pancytopenia.