The Supreme Court of the ACT recently decided that a woman was entitled to birth injury compensation claims after staff at The Canberra Hospital took three hours to recognise, and promptly treat with further surgery, a bleed suffered after a caesarean section. The decision shows how complex medical negligence claims can be, particularly when it comes to the causation of damage.
The Facts
A summary of the ACT case of Read v The Australian Capital Territory provides an insight into how courts determine medical negligence claims, in particular in regards to birth injury compensation claims. It also shows how, on appeal, an injured party may end up with a reduction on the award from the Court below.
- In the Court below, it was held that the Canberra Hospital (“the Hospital”) breached its duty of care to Ms Read by taking three hours to diagnose that she was bleeding internally from her uterine artery after a c-section delivery. This resulted in a delay in taking her back for a second surgery (a laparotomy) to identify the source of the bleeding and tie off the uterine artery to stem the blood flow.
- Ms Read was awarded $50,000 for general damages (for her pain and suffering associated with psychological injury).
- Ms Read’s solicitors appealed the decision, arguing that the award for general damages was insufficient and that compensation should have been awarded for economic loss and for domestic care and assistance required by Ms Read.
- The Hospital’s solicitors cross-appealed. They did not argue that there was no breach of the duty of care owed to Ms Read. However, they argued that there was no additional significant harm caused by the delay. In other words, they argued Ms Read’s pain and suffering resulted from the c-section itself and from the second surgery, which she would have needed regardless of the delay.
- The link between a breach of duty to exercise reasonable care and skill and the damage resulting from the breach is known as causation. Causation is an essential element that needs to be proven by an injured party in a negligence action.
- The Supreme Court held that Ms Read would have suffered her diagnosed psychiatric condition regardless of the delay on the part of the hospital, because of the traumatic circumstances surrounding the pregnancy and the birth (extensive admission to hospital due to complications of pregnancy; haemorrhage during pregnancy; significant blood loss during emergency c-section; the need for a second surgery; the admission to ICU – none of which were the result of a breach of duty by the Hospital).
- However, the Court held that Ms Read was entitled to compensation for anxiety and discomfort during the period of delay when she continued to bleed internally and had an elevated heart rate. Any additional consequences flowing from the additional loss of blood (during the three-hour period) would also be compensated if proven.
- On this reasoning and because the Hospital had established that the findings of the Court below on causation of harm involved errors, the award of general damages could be reconsidered. The amount awarded for general damages was reduced to $13,000. The Court confirmed there was no economic loss or need for domestic care and assistance caused by the three-hour delay and so no additional compensation was awarded.
Birth trauma compensation claims and issues of causation are complex and require an experienced medical negligence solicitor. We welcome your call should you require some obligation-free advice on your birth experience.
