A 46-yr-old nurse overrun by an aggressive hospital patient has defeated her employer’s argument that it had an adequate system in place to prevent such an injury in which she had been adequately trained.
Lisa Ringuet – active, fit and weighing in at just 50kg – was on duty in the Young Adult Mental Health Unit at the Robina Psychiatric Hospital in August 2012 when she unlocked the nurse’s station door to enter the intensive care unit.
A young male patient with a known history of aggression and a high risk of escape had concealed himself near the other side of the entry. Unknown to Lisa, just a few hours earlier at around 3am, the patient was marked as needing a further risk assessment after a violent outburst.
The patient barged at the door as she opened it. Lisa pushed back until assistance arrived, suffering an injury to her lower back.
After periods off work, she retrained in a different health care field but was unable to continue full time work. She also developed a psychiatric condition from the incident but returned to work 16 – 24 hours per week in May 2015.
The hospital did not dispute – when the damages claim process was begun – that the incident had occurred or that an injury was sustained.
It answered the claim by asserting it had a perfectly adequate system in place and that there was no need for extra measures to have been taken on this particular occasion as Lisa had been fully trained in the steps she was required to take.
She was, so their argument ran, the cause of her own injuries by failing to check that there were no risk patients nearby by looking through the glass panel adjacent to the door which she denied to the court’s satisfaction.
The facts established that she was working in tandem with another nurse who was in the medicine room alone and was entering the secure unit to do a rubbish collection run.
The principal element of the hospital’s safety plan was that nurses were required in in the psychiatric ward intensive care unit to work “in pairs”.
But this did not mean that the pair had to work side by side. Rather, it merely required that each of them was to be aware of what the other nurse was doing and roughly where in the ward they were.
How such a policy could be relied on as the foundation of a safe system of work in dealing with aggressive and dangerous patients left some explaining to be done.
“Apart from the requirement to communicate with the other nurse and to inform each other of their whereabouts prior to isolating themselves with patients,” she was not provided with any other guideline for entering the intensive care unit.
Neither had Lisa received any training – other than a five-day induction course in 2010 – in how to deal with aggressive patients or with the particular characteristics of those in the intensive care unit at that time.
The employer called nurse’s credibility into question by demonstrating her inconsistent answers to various questionnaires.
While accepting that this “did not reflect well on the plaintiff”, Judge John Mujir in the District Court in Southport said that such answers were “equally consistent with the plaintiff being hardworking and determined to get herself back into the workforce while trying to overcome her injuries”.
His Honour’s impression was that the plaintiff was “generally a credible and honest witness” but he was unable to conclude whether or not any particular warnings were given to Lisa about the patient when she started her shift.
He concluded that the patient got to the door while Lisa was putting her rubber gloves on, after looking through the viewing panel and before turning the lock in accordance “with the practice of the intensive care unit at the time”.
“On balance I accept the plaintiff’s evidence that it was her usual practice to look through the glass panel on the door”.
Noting that the hospital knew of the particular risk of this patient, His Honour concluded that the risk of him trying to abscond “from the intensive care unit causing injury to a nurse along the way was obvious and reasonably foreseeable”.
“It follows and I find that the risk that the nurse might sustain an injury in trying to prevent the patient from escaping the secured area as the door was being opened was foreseeable and not insignificant in this case”.
But what could the hospital have done to prevent the injury?
The reasonable “and practical precaution available to reduce the risk was to require a security officer to be called and attend there to assist the nursing staff on each occasion they were required to enter the unit,” so ruled the judge.
“Given that security officers were employed at present at the hospital, such as system would not be too difficult or costly or implement”.
The extent of the plaintiff’s injury became a contest between neurosurgeons Scott Campbell on the one hand who assessed her injuries at 8% WPI, and Richard Williams who took the view that she was 0%.
Both specialists agreed that the plaintiff had an injury to her lumbar spine as a result of the incident, but Dr Williams was of the view that it had fully resolved “within six weeks”.
That said, Dr Williams accepted that the twisting movement during the course of the struggle may have caused “substructural” microinjury that does not typically show on MRI.
His Honour preferred the evidence of Dr Campbell but found that the symptoms complained of were not as severe as the plaintiff alleged.
Psychiatrists, Dr Harvey Whiteford and Dr Malcolm Foxcroft considered that the 5% impairment they each attributed to her had largely been ameliorated to 0%, but both were of the view that she was at a risk of relapse if exposed to further trauma.
After all that medical evidence, general damages were assessed at mere $11k.
Noting that she should be accorded recognition for her sheer determination and tenacity for her return to work efforts, Judge Muir awarded $195k for past economic loss and for the future, $122k making a total assessment of $400k.
Ringuet v State of Queensland [2019] QDC 91 Muir DCJ, 6 June 2019
The post “Adequate” system of work found wanting in hospital patient’s attack on nurse appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

An Ipswich GP who allowed a patient to make his own way to the P.A. Hospital emergency room rather than call an ambulance to conduct the transfer has been ordered by a court to defend the patient’s out-of-time injury compensation claim for a severe spinal injury that resulted from delayed surgery to relieve his condition.
Steve Walker was under treatment from GP Susan Mogg for unexplained back pain but on 11 October 2013 presented to Dr Clive Tucker at another Ipswich medical practice with agonising pain in his upper back and paraesthesia in both legs.
An on-site CT scan revealed a possible tumour very close to his thoracic spine. The GP armed the patient with a referral to the Princess Alexandra Hospital emergency department and sent him on his way.
Perhaps not appreciating the urgent need for neurological intervention, Walker arrived at Ipswich Hospital emergency some time later, courtesy of a friend who had collected him from his home.
From there he was transferred to the PAH as an urgent case where a MRI was performed prior to surgery about 3 hrs 20 mins after his arrival, unfortunately too late to prevent permanent damage to his spinal cord from the tumour pressing against it.
In the course of Walker’s 2016 lawsuit against Dr Mogg and the Ipswich Hospital that alleged them accountable, two medical experts – in referring to Dr Mogg’s care of the patient – raised questions as to whether Dr Tucker could also have done better.
GP specialist Jenny Downes-Brydon was of the view that a patient presenting with progressive back pain and sudden neurological symptoms should have been treated as a medical emergency justifying immediate ambulance transport to an appropriate hospital.
And Professor John Raftos thought the patient ought to have been transported by ambulance no later than 3:30pm direct from the surgery to a neurosurgical centre of excellence, namely the PAH.
On the other hand Dr Lynch – the GP expert who was asked to advise specifically as to the appropriateness of Dr Tucker’s conduct – cleared him of any mistakes, that is until he had a change of heart in October 2017.
Lynch’s about face – more than four years after the incident – branded as negligent, Tucker’s failure to call an ambulance to his surgery to transport the patient to the PA Emergency.
Based on the new “material fact of a decisive nature” – constituted by Dr Lynch’s altered opinion – Walker issued fresh proceedings against Dr Tucker in July 2018 and applied to the court for an extension of the 3-year limitation period that applied.
Walker’s extension application came before Justice Sue Brown in Brisbane’s Supreme Court in December 2018.
To support his application, Walker tied in the opinion of neurosurgeon, Professor Noel Dan who reported in 2014 that – among other things – the paraplegia would likely have been avoided if surgery had been performed between 7pm and 8pm on the night of the transfer.
The only issue for the court’s determination was whether the alteration of Dr Lynch’s opinion in July 2017 was a material and decisive fact in the case of potential negligence against Dr Tucker for failing to call an ambulance.
Tucker’s insurers argued that the information or the opinion that was forthcoming from Dr Lynch in 2017 had been more or less already conveyed as early as 2014 by Dr Downes-Brydon and Professor Raftos.
Justice Brown however was of the view that Dr Lynch’s changed opinion was in the circumstances, a material decisive fact.
“Until that point in time he did not have evidence supporting a right of action against Dr Tucker that had reasonable prospects of success,” she ruled. The questions raised by the other doctors in 2014 were “was opinions that Dr Tucker had failed to reach the requisite standard of care”.
Mr Walker had been “positively advised,” she observed, that Dr Tucker had done what a reasonable and prudent general practitioner would have done and “made a deliberate decision not to commence proceedings against him based on” the available opinions.
But was Dr Tucker prejudiced by providing statements to Walker’s lawyers on the specific assurance that he would not be the subject of a claim?
Maybe so, but Justice Brown concluded – after careful consideration – such conduct “has [not] caused significant prejudice to him so as to preclude a fair trial”.
Thus Mr Walker will have his day in court against Dr Tucker in the coming months.
Walker v Tucker [2019] QSC 141 Brown J, 4 June 2019
The post Expert’s about face allows out-of-time GP ambulance transfer lawsuit appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

With no thought of the physical toll that the heavy work might have on his 45-yr-old frame, Jason Kelleher took up his role with Century Batteries at Labrador in January 2012.
The job demanded he deliver car and boat batteries – some weighing more than 60kg – to Century customers all over the Gold Coast.
Given his diagnosis just months before of a bulging disc in his lower spine, his exposure to heavy lifting was not ideal.
Jason was up front with the battery company about the earlier injury and was offered the job after passing a half-day trial.
The disc condition was apparently a product of his May 2011 road trip to re-locate north from NSW and the arduous tasks of moving residence and settling in.
Although the symptoms had included referred pain to his left buttock and pain radiating down his left leg, the condition substantially resolved by the end of that year without needing any invasive treatment.
As luck would have it, the battery delivery driver’s back condition deteriorated – with increasing back, buttock and sciatic leg pain, which he self-treated with periods attached to an inversion table – over the 20 months he was in the position.
Then in August 2013 he jarred his back by jumping 50cm to exit the truck cab, to the ground.
A discectomy funded by Workcover followed. Within weeks, he developed pain to the right side of his lower back casing neurosurgeon Laurence McEntee to recommend a revision procedure.
Workcover refused funding for the revision and an inevitable workplace injury dispute followed.
His case for negligence and breach of contract against his employer was eventually heard in the Supreme Court over five days in June 2018.
Jason alleged that his lower back injury and a psychological condition had resulted from repetitively lifting the batteries over the entire period and from the August 2013 truck cab exit.
He enlisted safety engineers Phillip Byard and Brendan McDougall to provide expert commentary as to manual handling techniques and truck egress safety.
“Batteries weighing more than 33 kg should not be handled manually,” explained Bayard. “Risks associated with lifting 93 batteries from 1kg to 52kg” each day should have been instructed.
Contrary to the employer’s contentions, Justice Soraya Ryan found that the worker received no on-the-job instruction, training, assistance or warnings about battery handling techniques.
“I find that no such assistance or instruction or trolley (as pleaded) was provided,” she wrote in her 85 page decision.
And had Jason employed a “three points of support technique, he would have been better able to control his rate of descent,” stated McDougall in relation to the truck cab exit “and the potential for injury would have been significantly reduced”.
Century’s contention that it in fact instructed such technique for descending from his assigned truck – Neil Armstrong style – was also dismissed by her honour. Neither did it monitor his observance of any safety direction.
On that basis Century went down on the second count as well.
The connection between the workplace events and Jason’s resulting medical condition fell to be decided in a contest between neurosurgeons, Scott Campbell for the plaintiff and Robert Labrom engaged by Workcover Qld who resisted Jason’s claim on behalf of Century.
The latter appeared to have misinterpreted Jason’s answer to his pre-consultation questionnaire that the height from which he exited the cab was “1 – 2 feet” as justification for a description of the action as a “step” rather than a fall.
Campbell concluded Jason’s 13% impairment was 60% of which was attributable to his pre-existing disc protrusion and 40% to the manual handling and truck cab exit to which he concluded Jason’s post-discectomy pain were a product of that surgery.
Labrom – whose qualifications include a Master of Science in Spine Biomechanics – initially concluded by different means that the truck cab exit was responsible for 50% of his current pathology, a finding that he later revised down to 20% in a subsequent report. He also argued that the serious post-discectomy pain Jason experienced was a product of the pre-existing condition.
Her honour devoted 10 pages of her judgment to a discussion of Dr Labrom’s reports and evidence making specific reference to various errors.
“Several aspects of Dr Labrom’s opinion reflected his misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the plaintiff’s history – detracting from the weight of his evidence overall,” she observed.
She also believed the weight of his evidence was diminished by not being prepared to make concessions after reconsidering “the corrected facts on the run during cross-examination”.
One would have expected those findings to have been enough to allow Jason’s case to come home strongly.
Not so. In the absence of evidence that appropriate manual handling techniques would have prevented or moderated the injury, Century could not – the judge reasoned – be held responsible for that aspect of Jason’s impairment.
“Dr Campbell was not asked to comment about whether the aggravation would have happened had particular measures been taken other than in too general a way.”
It was therefore not possible for the judge to conclude “as a matter of direct evidence or of inference, that had a certain precaution been taken, the plaintiff’s injuries would have been prevented or minimised.”
However a finding in Jason’s favour that the discectomy following the truck cab fall and complications arising from it, were all work related, brought home the win.
That was enough for total damages to be assessed at $414k, including $182k for loss of future earning capacity – significantly discounted due to our protagonist’s pre-existing condition – and just $14k for general damages.
“The plaintiff showed a remarkable capacity to deal with the labour of his workload,” the judge remarked in recording judgement in Jason’s favour.
Kelleher v J&A Accessories Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 227, Ryan J, 4 October 2018
The post One small step for man – employers reminded to keep up the training to staff appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

What law must be applied in the adjudication of a claim arising out of an overseas accident that is litigated in Australia?
That question frequently arises in holiday and travel claims including in antipodean airline injury cases if the injured passenger chooses to commence the claim in an Australian jurisdiction.
Damages will be assessed according to the law of the forum unless the circumstances of the accident and its location require otherwise.
In the case of domestically litigated international airline injuries, federal law mandates that the 1999 Montréal Convention has the force of law in Australia and hence must be relied upon for the injured person’s cause of action.
Consider the case of Lina De Falco who sustained a serious ankle injury from a fall in the cabin of an Emirates aircraft when she flew from Melbourne to Dubai in March 2015.
Her lawyers decided Victoria was an appropriate jurisdiction for her suit against the airline. She contended her injury arose out of an “accident” within the purview of the Convention for which she claimed the carrier was liable.
The airline’s insurer agreed the event was covered by Montreal but asserted the general damages thresholds of local Victorian law applied in the assessment of injury compensation.
Both parties concurred that the answer to the question of what damages law applied, lay in the interpretation of section 79 of the Judiciary Act.
That section states that if an action for an injury is brought in a state court exercising federal jurisdiction, the law of that state will – by way of s 79 “picking up” that law and applying it – govern the assessment of damages. That is, unless the Constitution or a federal law “otherwise provides” or if the state provision is “inapplicable”.
According to the airline, the Convention deals only with “liability” and not damages. State law as to damages should therefore be “picked up” and applied.
The passenger accepted that the Convention left to domestic law the questions of who may bring a claim, what damages apply and how they are calculated.
But – she argued – there was a contradiction between the federal and state regimes. On the one hand the Convention imposed on Emirates, liability “for damage sustained for death or bodily injury of a passenger” if the injury was proved to come within the Convention definition of “accident”. On the other, the Wrongs Act imposed a general damages threshold that would extinguish part of her compensation entitlement.
Because of such inconsistency, the federal law that adopted the Convention must be taken – so Lina’s argument went – to “otherwise provide” so as to render the local law non-engageable. Her compensation fell, she said, to be reckoned according to the common law of Victoria.
Justice Andrew Keogh agreed.
The effect of the Convention, he reasoned, is to give the plaintiff a “right to damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life that is expressed to be in substitution for any other civil liability or right”.
The application of the threshold in the state act would “derogate from that right by extinguishing or restricting her entitlement to recover damages”.
The relevant provisions of the state act were also ruled out for failure to meet the second s 79 requirement – “applicability” – because the impairment threshold was expressed to apply to claims for injury based on the fault of another, rather than – in the case of Montreal claims – that arise from an “accident” as described in the treaty.
The Wrongs Act did not qualify to be “picked up” by section 79 and applied as “surrogate federal law”on both counts although its failure to satisfy either one would have disqualified the engagement of s 79.
Would the general damages thresholds of the NSW Civil Liability Act be “picked up” and applied if the proceedings had been conducted in NSW or those of the Queensland ISV scale, if commenced there?
The NSW CLA gets its foot in the door under the s 79  “applicability” test because it is expressed to do so “whether the claim for damages is brought in tort, in contract, under statute or otherwise”.
But because the Convention “otherwise provides” in relation to general damages than do the CLA thresholds, those CLA provisions could not be “picked up” by s 79 and applied in the damages determination.
The Queensland CLA – like Victoria’s Wrongs Act provisions – meets neither s 79 qualification in an international airline injury scenario. It fails the “applicability” test because it applies only to “breach of duty” situations into which Convention claims do not fit. It fails to meet the second requirement because the Convention “otherwise provides” in relation to damages.
The same conclusions would likely be arrived at in relation to interstate airline travel.
What though of other holiday and travel claims, for example a claim for compensation for an injury arising by way of contract breach or breach of an ACL statutory guarantee.
Such were the circumstances of David Moore who sued Scenic Tours for his “disappointment” that his June 2013 luxury European river cruise had been spoiled by severe flooding on the Rhine and Main Rivers due to heavy flooding that befell the region early that summer.
The NSW Court of Appeal re-visited the complex issues of Insight Vacations v Young – also arrived at in a European vacation setting but in reference to the Trade Practices Act – that it famously decided 8 years earlier.
Among the many questions in issue was whether a claim for damages for distress and disappointment can be made in New South Wales for a breach of statutory warranties that occurred outside Australia and if so, whether those damages were curtailed by the 15% impairment threshold imposed by s 16 of the CLA.
The CLA could not be “picked up” and applied by operation of s 79 because “it was irreconcilable,” ruled Justice Ronald Sackville in delivering the lead judgment, “with a consumer’s entitlement to recover damages as a result of a supplier’s breach of an ACL statutory guarantee”.
He identified though that the ACL has in its own s 275, a provision  specifically designed to facilitate the application of damages restrictions contained in state laws. Where an ACL cause of action is pleaded in relation to the supply by contract of services or goods  to a consumer, s 275 “picks up” the NSW law and applies it as if it a term of the contract of that supply. (He left open the question of whether the same result would be arrived at if the supply occurred in the absence of a contract.)
Queensland’s CLA – applying only to “breach of duty” situations –  does not meet the “applicability” qualification identified in De Falco for s 79 to operate.
But can s 275 “pick up” and apply the provisions of the Queensland (or for that matter Victorian) acts that are inapplicable for that reason?
Put another way, can s 275 operate to engage Queensland’s CLA (or Victoria’s Wrongs Act) to restrict damages payable to a consumer for breach of a statutory guarantee where no breach of duty (or fault) is alleged?
The answer is – after careful consideration of the unusual mechanism in s 275 – “No”.
That is because the damages law of neither Queensland (“breach of duty”) and Victoria (“fault”) could limit or preclude the supplier’s liability if the consumer had made a claim in contract for the same relief.
“The most natural reading of the statutory language is that the Court is required to consider how, if at all,” Justice Sackville explains, “the relevant State law would apply to limit or preclude the supplier’s liability if it breached a term of the contract and the consumer sought the same relief in a contract claim as he or she seeks for breach of the Consumer Guarantees.
“To put the matter another way, s 275 of the ACL requires the Court to consider how (if at all) the relevant State law would limit or preclude the supplier’s liability if the consumer had made a claim in contract for the same relief as he or she seeks in the claim for breach of the Consumer Guarantees.”
Finally, the trial judge in Scenic concluded that NSW CLA s 16 applied as “surrogate federal law” – by operation of ACL section 275 – but held that the section had no extra-territorial operation due to a presumption that such laws not intended to apply outside the state.
Justice Sackville in a somewhat tortuous examination, concluded that the geographical restraint on the operation of the CLA was not automatic. Departing from Insight Vacations, he ruled that because the CLA’s “command” as to the damages that should be awarded was “directed to a court”, it should apply to all court adjudications regardless of the locus delicti.
So notwithstanding that the breach occurred outside Australia, the state court assessing injury damages (which in NSW are taken to include “disappointment”) was bound by the CLA “command” to apply the 15% threshold, of which no evidence had been introduced.
Moore was nevertheless entitled to economic damages for the extent to which he did not get the benefit of his holiday, assessed objectively.
These two decisions  – De Falco is 12 pages, Scenic is 130 pages – serve to clarify many of the very complex issues arising from the conflict in holiday & travel claims between benevolent federal consumer laws and those of the states designed to favour insurers.
De Falco v Emirates Keogh J, [2018] VSC 472, 24 August 2018
Scenic Tours Pty Limited v Moore [2018] NSWCA 238, Payne JA, Sackville AJA and Barrett AJA, 24 October 2018
The post On planes and boats: benevolent federal laws under siege from pro-insurer state acts appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

We’re very excited to have a new paralegal assistant in the office! Hollie joined us this year, bringing with her more than four years of experience working in a legal office. Hollie is currently studying a Bachelor of Social Work at Griffith University, and in her spare time, she enjoys going out for breakfast, listening to music, […]

The post Hollie has joined the team at Carter Capner appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

In March last year Holly Jones – as she regularly did – purchased two slices of her daughter’s favourite pizza from her local Whole Foods store. But on this occasion, the Vegan Garden Pizza caused serious and life threatening injuries. Jones phoned the store to alert them to the hospitalisation of her daughter – who […]

The post How a pizza sauce put girl in hospital appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

Despite its reputation as a problem suburb, Inala is set to emerge as Brisbane’s next property hotspot. Property analyst Terry Ryder from Hotspotting.com.au is optimistic the suburb will continue to see growth moving forward. He attributes the current increase in demand to the affordability of housing along with strong infrastructure. The area of interest includes […]

The post South-west Brisbane suburb set for property boom appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

A 17-year-old boy has died after an incident at Lambton Pool in Newcastle, NSW. Police attended the local pool after receiving reports of a ‘fight’ between a teenager who was at the pool with his carer, and an employee. Witnesses of the incident allegedly had to intervene and hold down the teen until police arrived […]

The post Teenager dies after allegedly assaulting an employee at a Newcastle pool appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

A Cairns man has been awarded substantial damages after he sustained a debilitating lumbar disc protrusion at the Raintrees Woolies store in Cairns. Michael Perkins was employed by Woolworths from August 2011 where he worked as a “back dock assistant” until he resigned in November 2011. His role required he employ the use of a […]

The post FRESH FOODIES TO PAY OVERWORKED ORDER PICKER $780K FOR BACK INJURY appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

The owners of a Brisbane restaurant are suing the SBS for defamation, after it broadcast a segment which labelled their restaurant ‘offensive’ and racist. Mark & Angela Kennedy opened The British Colonial Co at Hawthorne in June 2016, marketing it as “inspired by the stylish days of the imperial promise of adventure and refinement in […]

The post ‘RACIST’ RESTAURANT SUES SBS appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

No one wants to get injured at work. But sometimes accidents happen – especially if you’re working in a high-risk industry. So what should you do if you’ve sustained an injury in the course of your job? What constitutes a workplace injury? There are a range of injuries, illnesses and conditions that may be claimed for, if they […]

The post What to do when you’ve been injured at work appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

In January 2012 Moyra Roane-Spray was being transferred from an ambulance at the Lamb Island ferry terminal en route to Redlands Hospital when the stretcher she was carried on collapsed at one end. The fall left her with numerous injuries, aggravated her pre-existing degenerative spinal conditions and significantly restricted her mobility and independence. Roane-Spray subsequently […]

The post STATE SUNK ON APPEAL, LOSES $558K INJURY IMMUNITY BID appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

Personal injury claims are one of the most common types of civil lawsuits brought by individuals. Before lodging a claim, it is important you understand the different types of injury claims, the limitation periods involved, your potential damages and how to file the lawsuit. Given complex court rules, you should engage an experienced solicitor to help you […]

The post How To Sue For Personal Injury appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

On Friday December 8, CCL staff, partners and clients celebrated the end of a massive year of wins.  The festivities took place at Les Bubbles Bath House, where we enjoyed canapes galore and mini versions of the venue’s famous steak and fries.  Add to that a drink or two, good conversations, and great people, and […]

The post CCL Knows How to Party! appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

Gable Tostee is suing the state for $300K in damages, claiming he was assaulted and wrongfully arrested by police. The accused ‘tinder killer’ – who now goes by the name Eric Thomas – was acquitted last year of all wrongdoing in connection with Warriena Wright’s 2014 plunge to her death from the railing of a […]

The post Tostee in $300k taxpayer ask appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

A Gold Coast medical specialist who made a proposition to a patient that she should become his mistress has been ordered to pay compensation for the resulting psychiatric injury and humiliation. Former N.Z. fashion model Faye Grieve laughed off the doctor’s advances even after he made it clear the arrangement would come with a condo, […]

The post Model patient wins humiliation $$ after Dr’s unwelcome full body exam appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

An appeal court has cleared a major injury compensation payment to a crack-hardy police constable whose superiors neglected to monitor her known PTSD condition during the four years after a return-to-work medical made the monitoring recommendation. Constable Melanie Sills had joined the force in May 2003 at age 26. When her GP diagnosed the condition […]

The post Burnt bodies & suicides – officer conceals PTSD, refuses counselling: awarded $1.4 mil appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

Emotional trauma can have a devastating impact on a person’s quality of life and is a key factor in many personal injury claims. If you’re thinking of suing someone for emotional distress, Carter Capner Law can offer legal advice on psychological injury claims. CAN COMPENSATION BE CLAIMED FOR A PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY WHERE THERE IS NO […]

The post Suing For Emotional Distress Australia appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

A 36-year-old Brisbane woman is suing doctors for a delay in diagnosing her cancer, despite multiple complaints and visits for her symptoms. Jodie Elisara first presented to a doctor in 2009 due to painful bowel movements and rectal bleeding, but was told it was just haemorrhoids. The mother of three went on to visit other […]

The post Doctors sued over delayed cancer diagnosis appeared first on Carter Capner Law.

An “improbable” injury to a dump truck operator, on the job at a Thiess’ open cut coal mine near Mackay for just two months, has yielded a $720k payout for income and other losses. Oskar Krobath – an Austrian chef who migrated to Australia in 1987 – finally broke into employment in the Queensland mining […]

The post Mining giant trounced on heavy rock compo hold out to “stoic” new recruit appeared first on Carter Capner Law.