As personal injury lawyers, we often find that injured people have preconceived ideas about personal injury claims. These may range...Read More
In the matter of Ziaee v Rubino  ACTCA 7, the plaintiff, Mr Michael Rubino, commenced court proceedings against the defendant general practitioner/doctor, Soroush Ziaee, seeking damages for injuries and losses as a result of an alleged a breach of duty to follow up a referral. The plaintiff was suffering pain as a result of hyperkeratosis (otherwise known as a corn) on the sole of his right foot, which started interfering with his ability to work. Between July 2013 and August 201, the plaintiff attended approximately nineteen consultations with the defendant doctor at the Tristar Medical Group. On 6 March 2014, the defendant doctor referred the plaintiff to a surgeon. On 2 May 2014, the defendant doctor sent a further referral to the surgeon after no response had been received from the first referral. No response to the first or second referral was received by either party and there followed a period of over two years, during which the plaintiff was treated predominately with prescribed painkillers. In August 2016, the plaintiff’s foot had become infected, and the plaintiff was in extreme pain. The plaintiff was admitted to hospital for acute care and surgery was conducted to drain an abscess.
At the trial, it was not in dispute that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to exercise reasonable care in treating the plaintiff, however, the other elements of the cause of action and the quantum of damages were in dispute. Ultimately, the trial judge found the plaintiff to be successful.
The defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision, submitting four grounds which can be summarised as follows:
The evidence therefore did not establish that the course followed by the two referrals constituted anything other than the normal operation of a significantly overstretched public health system. Contrary to the primary Judge’s finding at , the reason for the long delay was that the respondent was on a long waiting list and had been allocated low priority. What follows is that there is no reason why the experience of Dr Gooding and the appellant, referred to above, does not provide a sound guide to what would have occurred if the appellant had followed up a referral or tried to “escalate” it within the public hospital system. It is most likely that that would not have changed the categorisation the respondent had been given, and therefore would not have resulted in him seeing a surgeon at any time before August 2016 when his condition became urgent.
Emily Wright and our team are specialist personal injury lawyers who can assist you with your claim on a ‘No Win No Fee’ basis. If you would like advice in relation to a personal injury claim, including a medical negligence claim, please reach out to Emily Wright and Littles Lawyers today.
Further blogs in relation to medical negligence and personal injury claims written by our Emily Wright can be found on our website.