Wilson v St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney [2015] NSWSC 371

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wilson v St Vincent's Hospital Sydney [2015] NSWSC 371 Hearing dates: 30 March 2015 Date of orders: 30 March 2015 Decision date: 30 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: I direct the plaintiff to attend the vocational capacity assessment fixed for 23 April 2015. I direct the plaintiff to make herself available for an occupational therapy assessment in her own home as soon as that can practicably be arranged. I fix the matter for further directions before me at 9.30 am on Thursday, 9 April 2015, for the parties to bring in short minutes as to convening joint expert conclaves for the purposes of the production of joint reports on liability. Catchwords: PROCEDURE – civil – interlocutory issues – directions – additional medical examination of plaintiff sought Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Rebekah Wilson (Plaintiff); St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P.W. Bates (Plaintiff); E. Sullivan (Defendant)

Solicitors: File Number(s): 2013/037269

EX TeMPORE Judgment (REVISED) 1. This is a notice of motion brought by the defendants in a medical negligence case, seeking additional examination of the plaintiff under Pt 23 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). 2. Three categories of examination are sought: an assessment of the plaintiff's vocational capacity; a neurological examination; and an occupational therapy assessment going to the claim advanced by the plaintiff under Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161. 3. The defendant relies upon the affidavit of Ms Watson-Keine. The plaintiff has opposed these examinations, but after argument this afternoon, it has emerged that learned counsel for the plaintiff is concerned that additinal work is being done which will delay the progress of the case. Provided efforts are made to bring forward the process of the liability experts conferring in conclave for the production of a joint report, the resistance to the vocational assessment and the occupational therapist assessment has become more muted. 4. I propose to direct that the plaintiff attend the vocational assessment fixed for 23 April 2015 and, through her solicitors, she make herself available for the usual occupational therapy assessment of care needs, to take place in her home as soon as that can practicably be arranged. 5. As far as the neurologist is concerned, the defendant has already had a 6. neurologist, Dr Neil Simon, consider the case. Although the opinion of a neurologist might go to both liability and quantum issues, I am not satisfied, on the material before me, that a further neurological examination is justified, at this stage. 7. Mr Gregg has explained that there seems to be a change in some of the expert opinions served on behalf of the plaintiff. I accept his judgment about that, but I think I need more convincing about just what the neurological assessment is to address and why it cannot be done by Dr Simon. 8. I make the following orders: 1. I direct the plaintiff to attend the vocational capacity assessment fixed for 23 April 2015. 2. I direct the plaintiff to make herself available for an occupational therapy assessment in her own home as soon as that can practicably be arranged. 3. I fix the matter for further directions before me at 9.30am on Thursday, 9 April 2015, for the parties to bring in short minutes as to convening joint expert conclaves for the purposes of the production of joint reports on liability.