A High Court of Australia ruling has reinstated the need for patients to prove causation of injury
The tort (ie, civil wrong) of medical negligence has recently changed, to the advantage of doctors. By its judgment in the case of Tabet v Gett in 2010 (Box 1),1 the High Court of Australia has effectively removed the concept of “loss of chance” (Box 2) as a possible course of action by patients against doctors. The doctrine of loss of chance had enabled a patient to obtain partial compensation for injury without having to prove causation.6
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12.
- 2. Tabet v Mansour [2007] NSWSC 36.
- 3. Gett v Tabet [2009] NSWCA 76.
- 4. Rufo v Hosking [2004] NSWCA 391.
- 5. Bowen T, Saxton A. The changing face of causation — denial of damages for possibilities and lost chances. Aust Health Law Bull 2009; (May): 117-122.
- 6. Tibballs J. Loss of chance: a new development in medical negligence law. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 233-235. <MJA full text>
- 7. Naxakis v Western General Hospital [1999] HCA 22.
- 8. Fischer DA. Tort recovery for loss of chance. Wake Forest Law Rev 2001; 36: 605.
No relevant disclosures.