$687,207 medical negligence settlement after knee replacement
A 2024 medical negligence case has resulted in a $687,207 award of damages to a patient who suffered acute pain and loss of function of her knee following a knee replacement procedure that took place in 2012.
The case is a reminder that claims for medical negligence often rest heavily on the expert medical evidence which each party introduces to the Court, and that the evidence of a treating expert is carefully considered by a Court when determining any factual findings.
The Court considered several factors which relevantly influence what must be proven in a medical negligence claim in Victoria, including:
Negligence: that the treatment provided to the patient fell below a reasonable standard;
Causation: that the negligence was a cause of the patient’s injuries or loss;
Injury: that the patient has suffered a permanent “significant” injury; and
That the claim is brought within a strict time limit.
Background to the knee injury
The Plaintiff suffered an injury to her knee as a child. During her youth she had multiple operations on her knee, which culminated in the removal of her right kneecap.
In early January 2012, she suffered an acute episode of knee pain when her knee locked when she was standing up before unlocking shortly after.
The Plaintiff went to see a surgeon in March 2012, where she described the worsening pain. The surgeon recommended several treatment plans, which she attempted until June 2012 without improvement. The surgeon then performed a total knee replacement on 18 June 2012.
After the knee replacement surgery, the Plaintiff suffered severe pain and loss of function in her knee, which she says was caused by the way that the operation was performed.
Eventually, following ongoing pain and several flare-ups, a revision procedure was performed by a different surgeon on 4 September 2018, which stabilised her condition.
Surgeon sued for medical negligence
The Plaintiff sued the surgeon who performed the June 2012 knee replacement, alleging that the surgery was performed negligently and that this failure has caused her pain, disability and loss. Specifically, she claimed that the Defendant surgeon implanted the replacement at an incorrect angle, in circumstances where she was especially vulnerable to because she did not have a kneecap.
The Defendant surgeon denied any breach of duty (negligence) and argued that the placement of the prosthesis was intentional and was placed to better align the knee.
While this was accepted, the Court referred to the notes of the Defendant surgeon in concluding that he treated the operation as a “routine knee replacement”, without particular reference to the Plaintiff’s particular condition and pre-existing injuries.
Court’s considerations in the medical negligence claim
The key to determination of the case was the Court’s analysis of the evidence of the surgeon who performed the September revision, as well as independent experts called by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant surgeon.
One such expert relied upon by the Defendant surgeon contended that imaging taken during the operation performed by the Defendant did not reveal a problem with the angle or alignment of the Plaintiff’s knee.
The surgeon who performed the revision gave evidence as a treating expert for the Plaintiff and was of the opinion that the replacement had been incorrectly positioned when the Defendant performed corrective surgery in 2018.
Both the surgeon who performed the revision and the expert called by the Defendant surgeon agreed that the Plaintiff’s pre-existing condition made her more vulnerable to any malalignment in the primary knee replacement.
In weighing the competing evidence, the Court preferred the opinion of the surgeon who performed the revision, who was said to have:
“the singular benefit of conducting an invasive assessment, which allowed him a 3D view of the tibial component and, on its removal, the proximal tibia itself. He did so in circumstances where he was conscious of the need accurately to record the extent of any malpositioning.”
While the expert surgeon called by the Defendant had seen imaging of the knee and the medical records, the surgeon who performed the revision had seen inside the knee when performing surgery in 2018.
Court finds surgeon negligent
The Court found that the tibial part of the knee replacement was misaligned by a greater degree than the Defendant surgeon had said would be acceptable.
The Court found that the Defendant surgeon had been negligent in the performance of the total knee replacement procedure in June 2012, and that the negligence caused the Plaintiff pain, suffering, disability and economic loss, entitling her to compensation due to medical negligence.
The Court awarded the Plaintiff $687,207 in compensation for her injuries, including $175,000 for general damages (or pain and suffering damages).
Get help from a medical negligence lawyer
This decision is a reminder that evidence provided by any medical experts (both for the Defendant and Plaintiff) during a Court trial carries significant weight when considering the outcome of a case.
If you’re considering a medical negligence claim, having an experienced personal injury lawyer early on can make a significant difference to the likely success of your claim. We offer a free initial consult and run cases on a “no win, no fee” basis. So, it costs you nothing to find out where you stand.