Medical negligence cases often involve complex legal and medical issues, as demonstrated in the recent case of Hartfield v Calvary Healthcare ACT Ltd [2025] ACTSC 488. This case, decided in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, highlights the challenges in determining liability in medical negligence claims, particularly in cases involving medical decisions and patient care.
Background
The plaintiff, Ms Emily Hartfield, brought a claim against Calvary Healthcare ACT Ltd, alleging medical negligence during her hospital admission on 31 July 2019 and subsequent discharge on 1 August 2019. Ms Hartfield, who was five weeks pregnant at the time, presented to the hospital with severe abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. She had a history of two miscarriages and a previous ectopic pregnancy, which had resulted in the removal of her right fallopian tube.
During her hospital stay, Ms Hartfield underwent several tests, including ultrasounds and blood tests, which indicated a pregnancy of unknown location. However, before her discharge, neither a miscarriage nor a tubal ectopic pregnancy had been conclusively ruled out. Despite complaints of pain and her medical history, she was discharged from the hospital on 1 August 2019. Later that evening, her pain worsened, and by 6:00am on 2 August 2019, she experienced acute pain and symptoms consistent with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. She was readmitted to the hospital and underwent emergency surgery to remove her remaining fallopian tube, leaving her unable to conceive naturally.
Issues for Determination
The case revolved around two key claims. First, Ms Hartfield argued that the hospital should have performed a laparoscopy during her first admission, which could have identified the ectopic pregnancy and allowed for a procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy without removing the fallopian tube. She contended that this would have preserved her natural fertility. Second, Ms Hartfield argued that the hospital breached its duty of care by discharging her without offering her the option to remain for further observation and pain management. She claimed that this breach caused her to suffer both physical and psychological harm.
Supreme Court Findings
On the primary claim, the court found that the hospital did not breach its duty of care by failing to perform a laparoscopy during Ms Hartfield’s first admission. Expert medical evidence highlighted the risks associated with performing a laparoscopy at that stage, including the possibility of damaging the fallopian tube further. The experts agreed that Ms Hartfield’s symptoms were consistent with multiple diagnoses, such as miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, and that expectant management was a reasonable approach under the circumstances. Consequently, the court concluded that the hospital’s decision to manage her condition without surgical intervention was appropriate, and the primary claim was dismissed.
However, on the alternative claim, the court determined that the hospital breached its duty of care by discharging Ms Hartfield without adequately discussing the option of remaining in the hospital for further observation and pain management. The court also found that the hospital failed to provide sufficient information about the likelihood of an ectopic pregnancy and the importance of returning to the hospital immediately if her symptoms worsened. The court concluded that this breach of duty caused Ms Hartfield to suffer significant physical pain and psychological harm. The court noted that had Ms Hartfield remained in the hospital, her pain would have been managed, and she would not have endured the extreme fear and trauma associated with her condition worsening at home.
Damages Awarded
The court awarded Ms Hartfield $118,306 in damages. This amount included compensation for the physical pain she suffered between the first and second admissions, as well as for her psychiatric injury, which was characterised by symptoms of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress. The court also awarded damages for the plaintiff’s loss of sleep and recurring nightmares caused by her trauma. However, the court did not award damages for the loss of Ms Hartfield’s fallopian tube or her natural fertility, as it was not established that the hospital’s negligence caused these losses.
Key Takeaways
The case of Hartfield v Calvary Healthcare ACT Ltd confirms the importance of clear communication and thorough patient care in medical settings. Hospitals have a responsibility to ensure patients are fully informed about their conditions, potential risks and the necessary steps to take if symptoms worsen. Failure to provide this information can lead to significant harm and legal liability. Medical negligence cases are inherently complex, requiring careful analysis of both medical evidence and legal principles. This case serves as a reminder that effective communication and diligent care are essential in preventing harm and achieving positive outcomes. If you have concerns about medical negligence, seeking professional legal advice is crucial to understanding your rights and options.
Foye Legal provides expert guidance to individuals pursuing medical negligence claims, helping them understand their rights and seek fair compensation for harm caused by substandard medical care.
Contact Foye Legal for a confidential consultation.
Keep up to date with the latest insights and news from Foye Legal
