Liability of anaesthetist for harm during caesarean

A recent case in the ACT highlights the potential risks in everyday medical procedures, in this case the administration of a spinal anaesthetic during a caesarean section.

On 14 February 2020, Ms Bronwyn Fuller was undergoing a scheduled caesarean section at The Canberra Hospital, and in the course of that procedure she required a spinal anaesthetic. Two doctors were present due to the fact that Ms Fuller had a high BMI and it was agreed that this factor could make the procedure more difficult.

During the administration of the anaesthetic, the spinal needle broke into two pieces. One of the pieces of the needle broke off and remained in Ms Fuller's back. She subsequently needed to have the broken piece surgically removed from her back.

Ms Fuller alleged that she had suffered psychological, neurological, and physical injuries as a result of the incident. She claimed that the injuries had affected her quality of life and also her earning capacity as a security guard (and also running her free-range egg farm).

During the procedure, Dr Abeygunasekara (an anaesthetic registrar) was supervised by Dr Stephens as he attempted to administer the spinal needle. Dr Abeygunasekara made several unsuccessful attempts to administer the spinal needle, after which Dr Stephens took over. However, when Dr Stephens removed the needle she discovered that it had broken into two pieces. A 40mm portion of needle was removed from Ms Fuller’s back and she then underwent a caesarean section under general anaesthetic to deliver her baby safely.

Ms Fuller commenced Court proceedings, alleging that the ACT (“the Defendant”) was vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr Abeygunasekara and Dr Stephens.

The primary judge, Robinson AJ, dismissed Ms Fuller’s claim. He found that negligence had not been established because the doctors had acted appropriately taking into account all the circumstances. The Court also considered the likely seriousness of the harm, with respect to the social utility of the procedure.

Ms Fuller filed an appeal in the Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal (“ACTCA”) and was successful in overturning the decision. It was held that the primary judge's factual findings of the circumstances were correct, however the ACTCA was of the view that negligence had been established.

The Court determined that the doctors had failed to take precautions to avoid the risk of harm to Ms Fuller when they administered the spinal needle. In particular, Dr Stephens did not use a fresh needle after she had taken over the procedure from Dr Abeygunasekara. The Court was of the view that in those circumstances, there was a risk of harm of the spinal needle breaking and that ought to have been known by the doctors.

The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the proceedings to the Supreme Court for an assessment of damages in favour of Ms Fuller.

If you need assistance or believe you are entitled to receiving Injury Compensation, please contact Tess Danjoux for legal advice at tdanjoux@marsdens.net.au

The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only. This publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific legal advice should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.