Connect
MJA
MJA

Legal clarification of “loss of chance of a better outcome” in Australia

Neera Bhatia and James Tibballs
Med J Aust 2012; 196 (3): 167-168. || doi: 10.5694/mja10.10225
Published online: 20 February 2012

A High Court of Australia ruling has reinstated the need for patients to prove causation of injury

The tort (ie, civil wrong) of medical negligence has recently changed, to the advantage of doctors. By its judgment in the case of Tabet v Gett in 2010 (Box 1),1 the High Court of Australia has effectively removed the concept of “loss of chance” (Box 2) as a possible course of action by patients against doctors. The doctrine of loss of chance had enabled a patient to obtain partial compensation for injury without having to prove causation.6

  • Neera Bhatia1
  • James Tibballs2

  • 1 School of Law, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 2 Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: james.tibballs@rch.org.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.