To the Editor: In deference to Grattan-Smith,1 defendant doctors are clearly advantaged and plaintiff patients disadvantaged by the High Court’s decision in Tabet v Gett,2 because a patient must now prove on the balance of probability (> 50%), not possibility (< 50%) as before, that negligence by the doctor caused harm.
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. Grattan-Smith PJ. Legal clarification of “loss of chance of a better outcome” in Australia [letter]. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 273. <MJA full text>
- 2. Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12.
- 3. Drabsch T. No fault compensation. Briefing paper no. 6/05. Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, 2005. http://www.parliament. nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/NoFaultCompensation (accessed Sep 2012).
- 4. National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Committee of Inquiry. Compensation and rehabilitation in Australia: report of the National Committee of Inquiry. Canberra: AGPS, 1974.
- 5. Luntz H. Reform of the law of negligence: wrong questions — wrong answers. UNSW Law J 2002; 25: 836.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
No relevant disclosures.