Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

Summary and Facts

The plaintiff was admitted to a hospital owned by the 17th defendant at 33 weeks of gestation, diagnosed with Placenta Praevia Type III, classifying her as a high-risk obstetric patient. After undergoing an emergency caesarean section, the plaintiff collapsed, was resuscitated, and then transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Following further care, the plaintiff suffered severe and irreversible brain damage, leading to permanent physical and mental disabilities.

Legal Issues

  • Did the defendants commit negligence?
  • Did the defendants breach their duty of care?
  • Did the breach of duty by the defendants cause the injuries and damages to the plaintiff?
  • Is the plaintiff entitled to special damages, pre-trial damages, damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, future general damages, and costs?

Court Findings

  • The standard of care expected of the defendants was aligned with the Federal Court decision in Zulhasnimar bt Hasan Basri & Anor v Dr Kuppu Velumani P & Ors.
  • Proper documentation of diagnosis, treatment, and medical plans in a patient’s records was essential, a fact admitted by one of the doctors during cross-examination.
  • Discrepancies were found between the estimated blood loss and the amount of blood transfused.
  • The court noted incomplete medical records for the period between 1 pm and the time the plaintiff was transferred to the ICU.
  • Witness testimony revealed that the danger stemmed from an underestimation of blood loss, leading to insufficient and delayed blood transfusions.
  • The court found that the defendants, including doctors and nurses, failed to respond to warning signs, resulting in oxygen deprivation and subsequent brain damage. The multidisciplinary team was collectively held liable for failing to monitor the plaintiff’s condition in the ICU properly.

Reference Cases

  • Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118
  • Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 (HC)
  • Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 3 WLR 1151
  • Foo Fio Na v Dr Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593
  • Zulhasnimar bt Hasan Basri & Anor v Dr Kuppu Velumani P & Ors [2017] 5 MLJ 438; [2017] 5 MLRA 399; [2017] 8 CLJ 605
  • Yusnita bt Johari (suing through her husband and litigation representative Khairil Faiz bin Rahamat) v Dr Jerilee Mariam Khong & Ors [2023] 9 MLJ 629
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

In a recent English Court of Appeal decision, the issue of misdelivery without the presentation of the original bill of lading was brought into focus. The court examined the shipowner’s delivery of cargo without presentation of the bill of lading and the subsequent endorsement to UniCredit Bank. Although a breach was found, the claim was dismissed on causation grounds, as the bank had knowledge of and implicitly authorized the delivery. This case emphasizes the crucial role of bill of lading in maritime transactions.

Read More »
7 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »
7 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.

Read More »
7 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Read More »
7 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们