fbpx

MENU

SEARCH

MAKE A PAYMENT

1800 996 994

Icon-area-1foyefacebook Icon-area-1foywinsta Icon-area-1foyein

MENU

SEARCH

MAKE A PAYMENT

1800 996 994

Icon-area-1foyefacebook Icon-area-1foywinsta Icon-area-1foyein
SUBSCRIBE

Personal Injury Commission Decision- Primary vs Secondary Psychological Injuries

By Emma Thomson & Taylor O’Connor | 11/12/2025 The case of Heydeman v Ability Options [2025] NSWPIC 385 is a significant decision by the Personal Injury Commission, addressing the distinction between primary and secondary psychological injuries under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The case highlights that trauma sustained from a workplace physical injury, could […]

Recent Personal Injury Commission Decision- Understanding No-Fault Motor Vehicle Accident Claims

By Emma Thomson & Taylor O’Connor | 09/12/2025 The recent Personal Injury Commission decision of Mousawi v Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPIC 557 sheds light on how the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW) (‘the Act’) applies to no-fault motor vehicle accident claims. This decision highlights the challenges in proving liability and the strict requirements […]

Ectopic pregnancy and hospital discharge in Hartfield v Calvary Healthcare ACT Ltd [2025] ACTSC 488

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.

Workers Compensation Case Update- Workplace Disease Injuries

The Personal Injury Commission has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Napper v Buckley’s Rural Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 456. This case highlights the challenges for workers suffering from diseases incurred in the workplace and the complexities surrounding their workers compensation entitlements.
Key Highlights:
Background
The Applicant, Tye Napper is a young man battling end-stage renal failure, and brought forward a claim against his former employer, Buckley’s Rural Services Pty Ltd, asserting that his kidney disease was caused by prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals during his employment as a weed sprayer. His condition has had a devastating impact on his life, requiring regular dialysis and placing him on the kidney transplant list.
Decision
1. Employment as the Main Contributing Factor: The Personal Injury Commission determined that Mr Napper’s kidney disease was contracted in the course of his employment, with his exposure to herbicides and organophosphates being the primary cause. This decision was supported by the expert testimony of Professor David Gracey, a renal physician, who provided compelling evidence linking the disease to occupational exposure.
2. Deemed Date of Injury: The injury was deemed to have occurred on 12 July 2018, the date of the Applicant’s first incapacity following a kidney biopsy. This date is critical for determining his entitlements under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).
3. Medical Expenses: While the Personal Injury Commission acknowledged the necessity of medical treatment for the Applicant’s condition, it found insufficient evidence to support claims for medical waste disposal costs. However, compensation was awarded for other incurred medical expenses.
The Commission’s decision reflects the challenges in proving causation in disease-related workers’ compensation claims.
Foye Legal can assist workers navigate their workers compensation entitlements. Contact Foye Legal for a confidential discussion today.
Read the full case details here: Napper v Buckley’s Rural Services Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 456

Case Update – Implications of Not Filing Pre-filing Defence within 42 Days

Foye Approved Web Images

In Elhawat v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2025], the NSW Court of Appeal has clarified the interpretation of Section 318(1)(c) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW). The Court ruled that a Defendant who fails to serve a pre-filing defence within the required 42-day period is barred from raising a defence of contributory negligence in subsequent proceedings.

Automated Vehicle Update: Are You Really Covered If Something Goes Awry?

Open road image with sun setting

With the news that Elon Musk’s Tesla is poised to activate technology known as Full Self Driving (Supervised) in Australia, we’re diving (or driving) into a question that increasingly hovers on the edge of our road (and our minds): if an automated vehicle causes injuries, are you genuinely protected?

SUBSCRIBE

Keep up to date with the latest insights and news from Foye Legal

Email Subscribe Footer