Greater Southern Area Health Service v Dr Angus [2007] NSWSC 1211

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Greater Southern Area Health Service v Dr Angus [2007] NSWSC 1211

HEARING DATE(S) : 16/10/06, 17/10/06, 18/10/06, 19/10/06, 20/10/06, 23/10/06, 24/10/06, 25/10/06, 30/10/06, 1/11/06, 2/11/06

JUDGMENT DATE : 2 November 2007

JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Adams J at 1

DECISION : Judgment for the defendant with costs.

PARTIES : Greater Southern Area Health Service Dr George Angus

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20097/2005

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: Mr D. J. Higgs SC/ Mr M. J. Windsor Defendant: Mr M. T. McCulloch SC/ Mr S. G. Barnes

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: General Insurance Law Department Defendant: Blake Dawson Waldron

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

2 November 2007

20097/05 Greater Southern Area Health Service v George Angus

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction 1 Jack Tori was born at Wagga Wagga Base Hospital at 10:58 hours on 20 September 1995. During the labour and delivery Jack suffered brain damage that resulted in a number of disabilities including cerebral palsy, epilepsy and moderate intellectual disability. Jack, by his next friend, sued the Greater Southern Area Health Service claiming damages for the negligence of the Service in its management of the labour and delivery. Those proceedings were ultimately settled for the sum of 7.5 million dollars plus costs. Settlement was approved by Levine J on 23 May 2003. The Service has now commenced proceedings against Dr George Angus pursuant to s5(1)(a) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 as a joint tort feasor liable to contribute to the judgment approved by Levine J. Dr Angus was a visiting medical officer at the hospital and the specialist "on call" obstetrician on the day of Jack's birth. It is not disputed by Dr Angus that the amount of the judgment and the costs paid by the Service to Jack were reasonable. 2 Dr Angus contends that he is not liable to contribute. The crucial questions arising for determination are, first, whether Dr Angus was consulted on the crucial day in connection with the question whether Mrs Tori's labour should be augmented with intravenous Syntocinon (also known as Oxytocin) and, if so, whether Dr Angus should have ensured that certain procedures were put in place as precautions against the risks associated with such augmentation. It is conceded on behalf of the Service that, if Dr Angus was not informed of the proposal to administer Syntocinon, then there is no basis for claiming a contribution from him. It is not suggested that administration of Syntocinon was inappropriate, let alone negligent. Rather, it is contended that, once administered, certain monitoring procedures should have been carried out because of increased risks to the mother, and particularly to the child, arising from the augmented labour. The plaintiff submits that, had that monitoring been undertaken, intervention in the delivery would have occurred which, in all probability, would have resulted in Jack being born uninjured. It is also argued that Mrs Tori should have been moved out of the birthing suite into a labour ward bed since, once her labour was augmented by Syntocinon, she was no longer a low risk patient and being in a labour ward bed made certain delivery procedures easier to undertake.