DOCSLIB.ORG

Medical Negligence and Mental Harm: Practitioner Perspectives on Challenges in Litigation and Mediation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by RMIT Research Repository Medical Negligence and Mental Harm: Practitioner Perspectives on Challenges in Litigation and Mediation A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Martina Popa LLB (Hons) (VU), GDLP (LCI), LLM (Melb) Australian Lawyer, Supreme Court of Victoria Graduate School of Business and Law College of Business RMIT University January 2018 i DECLARATION I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis/project is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed. I acknowledge the support I have received for my research through the provision of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Martina Popa January 2018 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Researching and writing this thesis has been a challenging and rewarding three year journey, and there are many people I would like to thank for their support and assistance. Thank you to my senior supervisor Associate Professor Kathy Douglas and my associate supervisor Dr Andrew Vaitiekunas for your guidance, feedback, support and mentorship. Your knowledge and experience has been invaluable in assisting me throughout my candidature. Thank you to my research participants who took time out of their busy schedules to speak to me. This thesis would not have been possible without your valuable insights into medical negligence practice. I am truly grateful. I acknowledge the editorial assistance of Dr Clare Coburn and Olivia Dean in editing this thesis. To my husband Branko Banda - Thank you for your unconditional love and support, and for being there to support me throughout the highs and the lows of this PhD journey. You saw the light at the end of the tunnel and the positive in every situation. Thank you to my parents, Danijela and Doru Popa, for instilling in me the ambition and determination to succeed academically. Paul Ryan, thank you for allowing me to draw on your knowledge and 46 years’ worth of legal experience at various times during my PhD journey, for your guidance on torts law principles and your bluntly honest feedback. Dr Ian Freckelton QC, thank you for inspiring me to research in medical negligence while I was undertaking my Master of Laws in 2014. I would like to acknowledge the helpful feedback provided by College of Business staff at my three PhD Milestones: Dr Paul Gibson, Professor Greg Taylor, Professor Penelope Weller, Dr Cameron Duff and Professor Sara Charlesworth. iii Thank you to Dr Paul Gibson for being an amazing HDR Coordinator and for your guidance throughout this journey. Thank you also to Kathy Graham for your administrative support. Thanks to the SGR team for your support and funding in my involvement in the 3 Minute Thesis competition, and to Dr Margaret Heffernan for your coaching assistance. The 3MT was an absolute highlight of my PhD candidature. A huge thank you to Professor Adela McMurray for your support as head of the Doctoral Training Centre. Thank you also to Professor Geoff Stokes for supporting my involvement in the HDR Leadership Team and the Doctoral Retreat. Steve Jasper, I wholeheartedly thank you for being the best friend and colleague a PhD candidate could ask for. People say doing a PhD can be a lonely ride, but you ensured I never felt alone throughout this journey. Thank you for being there to share many exciting, challenging and fun moments. I would also like to thank a number of RMIT colleagues and PhD candidates who supported me throughout my candidature: Dr Anne Kallies, Olivia Dean, Natalie McKenna, Jozica Kutin, Jess Pallant, Jess Bellingham, Michael Rowe, Sam Zhang, Nigel Palmer and the HDR Leadership Team - Suraiyah Akbar, Susanti Rachman, Xun Yang and Rezaul Shumon. iv LIST OF PUBLICATIONS Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles Tina Popa, ‘Criticising Current Causation Principles: Views from Victorian Lawyers on Medical Negligence Legislation’ (2017) 25(1) Journal of Law and Medicine 150 – 165. Tina Popa, ‘Practitioner Perspectives on Continuing Legal Challenges in Mental Harm and Medical Negligence: Time for a No-Fault Approach?’ (2017) 25(1) Tort Law Review 19 – 36. Tina Popa, ‘Righting Wrongs: Lawyers’ Reflections on the Amendments to the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) on Medical Negligence and Mental Harm Claims’ (2017) 24(1) Torts Law Journal 64 – 82. Tina Popa, ‘All the Way with ADR: Further Endorsement of ADR in Litigation’ (2015) 26 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 218 – 225. Conference Papers Tina Popa and Kathy Douglas, ‘Are Plaintiffs in Medical Negligence Claims Being Heard in Mediation: A Lack of Procedural Justice?’, Law and Society Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference, 6 – 9 December 2017, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tina Popa and Kathy Douglas, ‘The Value of Mediation in Medical Negligence: Views from Senior Tort Lawyers’, ADR Research Network Roundtable, 4 – 5 December 2017, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tina Popa and Kathy Douglas, ‘Emotional Responses in Medical Negligence: Failing to Provide Emotional Closure?’, Non-Adversarial Justice Conference, 6 – 8 April 2017, Sydney. Tina Popa and Kathy Douglas, ‘Lawyer’s Role in Mediation: Reflections from Medical Negligence Lawyers’, Civil Justice Symposium, 15 – 16 February 2017, Adelaide. 3-Minute Thesis Competition Award Tina Popa, ‘Medical Negligence: Legal Challenges’, RMIT University winner and People’s Choice Award recipient, 25 August 2016, Melbourne. v TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... x LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... xii ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4 1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 4 1.1.1 THE FIRST TRANCHE OF REFORMS: THE 2002-2003 IPP REFORMS........... 9 1.1.2 THE EFFECTS OF THE IPP REFORMS .............................................................. 13 1.1.3 THE SECOND TRANCHE OF REFORMS: THE VCEC REPORT AND THE 2015 VICTORIAN TORT REFORMS............................................................................ 15 1.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 16 1.2.1 CORRECTIVE JUSTICE THEORY ...................................................................... 18 1.2.2 ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY THEORY .................................................................. 21 1.2.3 COHERENCE AND REGULATION .................................................................... 23 1.3 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND MEDIATION .......................................................... 24 1.4 RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND SCOPE ................................................................. 26 1.4.1 SCOPE OF RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 27 1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS ......................................................... 27 1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................... 28 1.7 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS.................................................................................. 29 1.8 STRUCTURE OF THIS THESIS .................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 2 – THRESHOLDS, CAPS AND CAUSATION IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE AND MENTAL HARM PROCEEDINGS .............................................. 34 2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 34 2.2 BACKGROUND TO THE IPP REFORMS ............................................................ 36 2.2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE KEY AMENDMENTS ................................................... 39 2.2.2 RESPONSE TO THE IPP REFORMS ................................................................ 40 2.3 CAUSATION AND MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ................................................... 46 2.3.1 PROBLEMS WITH CAUSATION ........................................................................ 47 2.3.2 ROGERS V WHITAKER....................................................................................... 50 2.3.3 CHAPPEL V HART ............................................................................................... 51 2.3.4 ROSENBERG V PERCIVAL ................................................................................ 53 2.3.5 ANALYSIS OF CASE LAW BETWEEN 1992 AND 2002.................................. 55 2.4 LEGAL CHALLENGES IN MENTAL HARM ..................................................... 55 vi 2.4.1 PROBLEMS WITH LEGISLATIVE
Recommended publications
  • Situating Women Judges on the High Court of Australia: Not Just Men in Skirts?

    Situating Women Judges on the High Court of Australia: Not Just Men in Skirts?

    Situating Women Judges on the High Court of Australia: Not Just Men in Skirts? Kcasey McLoughlin BA (Hons) LLB (Hons) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, the University of Newcastle January 2016 Statement of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in the University's Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Kcasey McLoughlin ii Acknowledgments I am most grateful to my principal supervisor, Jim Jose, for his unswerving patience, willingness to share his expertise and for the care and respect he has shown for my ideas. His belief in challenging disciplinary boundaries, and seemingly limitless generosity in mentoring others to do so has sustained me and this thesis. I am honoured to have been in receipt of his friendship, and owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for his unstinting support, assistance and encouragement. I am also grateful to my co-supervisor, Katherine Lindsay, for generously sharing her expertise in Constitutional Law and for fostering my interest in the High Court of Australia and the judges who sit on it. Her enthusiasm, very helpful advice and intellectual guidance were instrumental motivators in completing the thesis. The Faculty of Business and Law at the University of Newcastle has provided a supportive, collaborative and intellectual space to share and debate my research.
  • Private Law in Theory and Practice

    Private Law in Theory and Practice

    Private Law in Theory and Practice Private Law in Theory and Practice explores important theoretical issues in tort law, the law of contract and the law of unjust enrichment, and relates the theory to judicial decision making in these areas of private law. Topics covered include the politics and philosophy of tort law reform, the role of good faith in contract law, comparative perspectives on setting aside con- tracts for mistake, and the theory and practice of proprietary remedies in the law of unjust enrichment. Contributors to the book bring a variety of theoretical perspectives to bear on the analysis of private law. They include: economic analysis, corrective justice theory, comparative analysis of law, socio-legal inquiry, social history, political theory as well as doctrinal analysis of the law. In all cases the theor- etical approaches are applied to recent case law developments in England, Australia and Canada, and, in the case of tort law, proposals in all these jurisdictions to reform the law. The book aims to present the theory of private law, and the application of theory to practical legal problems in an accessible form to teachers and students of tort, contract and the law of unjust enrichment, legal researchers and law reformers. Michael Bryan is Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne. He has researched and published extensively in the areas of equity, trusts and restitu- tion, including The Law of Non-Disclosure (with A. Duggan and F. Hanks: Longman, 1995) and contributed a chapter to The Law of Obligations: Connections and Boundaries (UCL Press, 2003).
  • Alj @ 80: Past, Present & Future*

    Alj @ 80: Past, Present & Future*

    ALJ @ 80: PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE* The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG** PAST & PRESENT National journal of record: The ALJ is 80. The British Empire was at its zenith in 1927 when the first issue was published. The Empire packed its colonial judges off home at 65, doubtless fearing that the midday sun would addle older brains. To this day, judges in most parts of the Commonwealth of Nations must retire at 65, or even 62. In Australia, the Constitution was changed to ensure that federal judges do not serve beyond 70. By such standards, the ALJ is getting long in the tooth. Yet we all know people who are as sharp as a tack at 80 and much older. And as I get older I tell myself that it is all relative It falls to me to lead this celebration. And to reflect on the changing perspectives of the law and of its profession over the past 80 years. In the law, we participate in such jubilees partly for reasons of * Paper delivered to a conference to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the ALJ, Sydney, 16 March 2007. ** Acting Chief Justice of Australia. The author acknowledges the assistance of Mr Adam Sharpe, Legal Research Officer in the High Court Library, in collecting statistical and other materials used in this article. 2. nostalgia; partly to get our bearings for the present; and partly to grasp the gossamer-thin portents that suggest where we may be going. There is nothing quite like the ALJ in most other common law jurisdictions. England has the Law Quarterly Review and the Modern Law Review.
  • 'A Principled and Pragmatic Approach to Cases of Negligently Inflicted

    'A Principled and Pragmatic Approach to Cases of Negligently Inflicted

    ‘A Principled and Pragmatic Approach to Cases of Negligently Inflicted Psychiatric Injury Based on Corrective Justice and Kantian Right’ Martin Alan James Allcock LLB(Hons)/BBSc Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology April 2018 1 Keywords Negligence – Australia Negligently inflicted psychiatric injury Personal injuries -- Australia Liability – Australia Corrective justice Interpretive legal theory 2 Abstract This thesis considers a particularly challenging area of law, namely, negligence involving pure psychiatric damage. The courts have traditionally struggled to find an approach to the duty of care in this area of law which is able to set clear rules of liability which are not arbitrary or unfair. This is primarily because of the intangible nature of the injury suffered, complexity of causal mechanisms involved, and limitations in relevant scientific knowledge. The courts have for these reasons commonly treated such claims with suspicion and have adopted strict controls on the ambit of liability. Underlying the fears expressed by the courts has been the view that it has been particularly difficult to develop principles of liability of general application which will not result in indeterminate liability and an opening of the floodgates of litigation. Orthodox understandings of this area of law suggest that there are two broad solutions to this problem. The first is a generalised test of reasonable foreseeability as the only duty test, advanced on the basis that this is a principled approach which does not set arbitrary and unjust rules of liability. Whilst having the advantage of flexibility, this approach risks leaving liability too wide.
  • To Compilation of Speeches Delivered by the Hon. Justice D Ipp AO

    To Compilation of Speeches Delivered by the Hon. Justice D Ipp AO

    Index to compilation of speeches delivered by the Hon. Justice D Ipp AO Page number Date speech Description reference within delivered pdf compilation 13 November 2009 Farewell Ceremony for the Honourable Justice Ipp Page 2 of 142 AO 21 November 2008 Maintaining the Tradition of Judicial Impartiality Page 24 of 142 1 November 2007 Paper delivered at the launch of "Principles of Page 39 of 142 Planning Law" by Mr Les Stein 17 May 2007 The Politics, Purpose and Reform of the Law of Negligence: Paper given at the Conference of the Page 43 of 142 Australian Insurance Law Association at Noosa 30 March 2007 The Metamorphosis of Slip and Fall: Paper given at the New South Wales State Conference of the Page 52 of 142 Australian Lawyers Alliance at the Hunter Valley Gardens 16 March 2007 Themes in the Law of Torts: Paper given at the Judges' Review Conference 2007: Past, Present Page 60 of 142 and Future Perspectives on the Law at the Westin Hotel 2 September 2006 Problems with Fact-finding Page 68 of 142 13 and 19 October The Trial Judge's Duties from an Appellate Point of 2004 View: Edited Version of a Paper given at a Conference in Beijing organised by the National Page 75 of 142 Judicial College, Beijing, 13 October 2004 and to the Shanghai Judicial College, Shanghai, 19 October 2004 12 and 19 October Ethical Problems with Judicial Activism: Edited 2004 Version of a Paper given at a Conference in Beijing organised by the National Judicial College, Beijing, Page 84 of 142 12 October 2004 and to the Shanghai Judicial College, Shanghai, 19 October
  • Equity's Australian Isolationism

    Equity's Australian Isolationism

    EQUITY’S AUSTRALIAN * ISOLATIONISM ** THE HON JUSTICE MICHAEL KIRBY AC CMG In this essay, delivered as the WA Lee Equity Lecture 2008, the author begins with a reminder of the history and original purposes of equitable doctrines and remedies. Skirting around the ‘fusion’ controversy that followed the Judicature Act reforms, starting in the 1870s, he examines the disinclination of Australian courts to develop the rules and remedies of equity by the techniques of analogous reasoning: a common engine for growth and change in the common law. By reference to several recent cases he suggests that a special Australian hostility to the development of equitable doctrine has emerged: Garcia v National Australia Bank;1 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say- Dee Pty Ltd2 and Breen v Williams.3 After reviewing judicial and academic responses to these and other cases, he calls for a change to this attitude. He urges a restoration of the former functional approach to the ambit of the binding rule established by decisions of the High Court of Australia and recognition of the proper and necessary function of Australia’s intermediate courts in developing judge-made law by analogous reasoning. Finally, he supports calls for a restoration of civility in judicial discourse in order to maintain respect for the appellate process and to recognise the debatable character of many appellate decisions and what they stand for. I A VITAL SOURCE OF PRINCIPLE It is a privilege to deliver the W A Lee Equity Lecture. I have known Tony Lee for 30 years. I pay tribute to his scholarship and his teaching of the law to generations of Australian lawyers.