Minter Ellison Health News 12 June 2013

Minter Ellison Health News 

12 June 2013 

Cases 

New South Wales 

Rasmussen and South Western Sydney Local Health District [2013] NSWSC 

656 (29 May 2013) 

Damages awarded for nervous shock following baby son’s death 

Ms Vanessa Rasmussen (plaintiff) was born on 3 December 1981. She became pregnant 

with Kaden in December 2006. Kaden was born on 18 August 2007 at Liverpool 

Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District (defendant). There were 

complications that resulted in brain damage. Kaden was ventilated and transferred to 

the intensive care unit. Four days later, on 22 August 2007, Ms Rasmussen and her 

husband decided to withdraw Kaden’s ventilation and he subsequently passed away. 

This decision was ‘heart wrenching, albeit a merciful and necessary one’. 

Ms Rasmussen declined the Hospital’s offer of counselling because she could not bring 

herself to return there. Liverpool Hospital admitted liability and accepts that Ms 

Rasmussen has suffered recognisable psychiatric injury due to Kaden’s death. Ms 

Rasmussen applied to the NSW Supreme Court (the Court) claiming damages for the 

nervous shock caused by Kaden’s death, including non-economic loss, loss of earning 

capacity, damages for domestic care and assistance and treatment expenses. 

Ms Rasmussen completed a Diploma in Hospitality Management from Wollongong TAFE. 

In 2001, she began work at Revesby Pizza Hut as an assistant manager and by 2005 

she was the manager of the Jannali Pizza Hut restaurant. By this time her gross annual 

earnings were A$37,000. At the time of becoming pregnant she was working at the 

Jannali Pizza Hut and earning A$41,000 per annum. Ms Rasmussen planned to resign 

from work when Kaden was born and return to full-time work when he was six months 

old. 

In February 2005, she began living with Bradley Rasmussen, whom she later married. 

At that time, Mr Rasmussen was an enlisted soldier and, whilst he was away on active 

service, Ms Rasmussen did the house cleaning, gardening and mowing. 

The Court heard evidence regarding Ms Rasmussen’s mental state, working situation 

and home life since the death of Kaden. Ms Rasmussen could not return to work after 

Kaden’s death and decided to make a complete career change. However, after gaining 

employment at Flight Centre in 2007, she was unable to concentrate or cope and 

resigned. She was unable to complete domestic tasks at home due to her mental state. 

Mr Rasmussen decided to leave the army and work as a grader operator in Wollongong 

because of his wife’s inability to cope.

2 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS 12 June 2013 

Ms Rasmussen was successful in gaining employment at an ANZ Bank Branch in 2010. 

However, her work performance is compromised by her anxiety and stresses. 

Ms Rasmussen has since had two daughters born in 2010 and 2012. She suffered from 

post-natal depression after the birth of her second daughter. This was contributed, in 

part, by the trauma she suffered after Kaden’s death. She has completed a Bachelor of 

Arts Degree at Southern Cross University by correspondence. 

Expert psychiatric evidence concluded that Ms Rasmussen has suffered an anxiety 

disorder and a pathological grief reaction, which is a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness’ 

under section 31 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Her symptoms will improve with 

treatment and the passage of time. 

In assessing damages, the Court accepted that Kaden’s death had transformed Ms 

Rasmussen’s life significantly. The births and nurturing of her two daughters had been 

affected by the loss of Kaden. Ms Rasmussen is overly concerned and anxious for their 

welfare. ‘The grief she suffers is lifelong.’ 1 

Ms Rasmussen’s work enthusiasm has been hindered by constant fears of job loss, 

concerns about whether she is performing in her job to a satisfactory standard and 

anxiety for the care of her children whilst she is at work. Ms Rasmussen is prone to 

anxiety and emotional liability when she encounters boys who would have been Kaden’s 

contemporaries. 

The Court noted Ms Rasmussen's abilities to obtain a degree, look after her children and 

work part-time, all demonstrating her capabilities to concentrate and perform. It 

showed a motivation to return to normal functioning. 

The Court awarded judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of A$366,903.60. 

Click here for the full decision 

Victoria 

Inquest into the death of Corey Irving Wright (22 May 2013) 

Coroner finds the lack of a formal mental health status review over one month 

was not causally related to the suicide of an involuntary psychiatric patient 

Mr Wright was 41 years of age and was the oldest of five children. He grew up in 

children’s homes and in foster care after his father left when he was young. Mr Wright’s 

mother, who suffered from schizophrenia, took her own life in 1998. Mr Wright kept in 

contact with his sister, Freyja De Losa, and was living with his brother, Jason Wright, 

and housemate, Martin Powell, at the time of his death. 

Mr Wright had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, polysubstance abuse (marijuana, 

amphetamine and heroin) and self harm. He had a number of admissions to Mental 

Health Services, including an admission to Thomas Embling Hospital due to an incident 

involving the destruction of property and theft in 2005. Since this time he had been 

treated as an involuntary psychiatric patient, subject to a community treatment order 

(CTO) under the supervision of Moreland Continuing Care Team (CCT), a unit of the 

North West Area Mental Health Service. He was receiving fortnightly depot injections of 

risperdal consta since 2005. 

Mr Wright did not believe he was suffering from a mental illness and would often discuss 

ceasing his medications due to the number of side effects he was experiencing, 

including drowsiness, upset stomach, skin rashes and sweating. On 16 August 2006, Dr 

Ana Lusicic (psychiatry registrar) and Ms Danielle Ashley (case manager) conducted a 

psychiatric review of Mr Wright. Dr Lusicic and Ms Ashley reported him to be engrossed 

1 At [52], Adamson J


with his medication and not wanting to be on a CTO. He lacked insight into his illness 

but denied any plans to harm himself or others. 

Mr Wright did not attend his next scheduled appointment on 22 August 2006. Medical 

records show that Dr Lusicic called Jason Wright to enquire of his brother’s whereabouts. 

Jason advised that Mr Wright did not feel well. When Dr Lusicic did speak with Mr Wright 

he agreed to attend on 23 August 2006. However, he failed to attend this appointment 

also. Dr Lusicic again telephoned Mr Wright and was informed that he was unwell due 

to the medication. Jason also advised Dr Lusicic that Mr Wright wanted to change 

doctors to one closer to his residential address in Frankston North. Dr Lusicic informed 

Mr Wright that due to his CTO a request for change needed to be in writing from his 

treating doctor. 

Mr Powell attended a Mental Health Review Board hearing with Mr Wright on 25 August 

2006 to confirm his involuntary status. He failed to attend a scheduled psychiatric 

review on 1 September 2006, this was rescheduled for 21 September 2006. However, 

he did attend a clinic appointment to receive his depot medications on 29 August and 13 

September 2006. 

Jason and Mr Powell reported seeing Mr Wright on the morning of 15 September 2006 

and did not notice any unusual behaviour. Between 11:00am and 12:00pm, Mr Wright 

left the house with Jason’s bike. At 12:34pm, a short distance from Kananook Railway 

Station, Mr Wright was seen to stand in the middle of the train track in the path of an 

oncoming train. Mr Wright was hit by the train and suffered fatal injuries. Jason’s bike 

was found a short distance away with Mr Powell’s phone numbers on a hand written 

note that was found in the gear cogs of the bike’s back wheel. 

At inquest, the Coroner accepted evidence from Mr Wright’s Total Care Progress Notes 

that showed he regularly missed scheduled appointments and, as a result, full mental 

status assessments were not performed at regular periods. A period of approximately 

one month had elapsed since his review with Dr Lusicic and Ms Ashley on 16 August 

2006 until his death on 15 September 2006. 

The Coroner heard evidence form Dr Jagadheesen, supervising consultant psychiatrist, 

at Moreland CCT. Dr Jagadheesen would only see clients under the care of the Mental 

Health team if he was referred to do so by the clinicians or if the progress notes 

indicated it was necessary. Dr Jagadheesen did not consider Mr Wright’s failure to 

attend clinic appointments as overly concerning. He was satisfied that Mr Wright had 

attended for his depot injections and was confident that Registered Psychiatric Nurses 

(RPN) would notify Mr Wright’s case managers or Dr Lusicic if they had any concerns. 

Furthermore, Dr Jagadheesen did not feel it necessary to revoke Mr Wright’s CTO and 

have him admitted to a psychiatric ward because of his failure to attend scheduled 

appoints. Dr Jagadheesen considered this ‘unnecessarily restrictive’. Dr Jagadheesen 

was unaware that Mr Wright had wanted to be transferred to a Mental Health Service 

closer to Frankston. He confirmed that this was generally an easy process that could be 

initiated by a request from a medical practitioner or the North West Area Mental Health 

Service. 

The Coroner found the Total Care Progress Notes to be legible and sufficiently 

informative to reflect the endeavours of Moreland CCT to engage with, treat and 

supervise Mr Wright. However, the Coroner accepted that Mr Wright never fully engaged 

or developed a rapport with his mental health treatment team. The Coroner was not 

critical of the treating mental health team for this lack of rapport but attributed it to Mr 

Wright’s lack of insight into his own mental health and his requirement for ongoing 

treatment. 

There was no evidence to suggest Mr Wright had experienced an increase in his suicidal 

ideations. Furthermore, other evidence, including the lack of any discussion concerning


the outcome of the Mental Health Review Board, the location of his mental health 

providers or the lack of a formal mental status review over one month was not found to 

be causally related to Mr Wright’s decision to take his own life. 

The Coroner concluded that Mr Wright’s mental health care was reasonable and 

appropriate in the circumstances. 

Click here for the findings 

Western Australia 

LS and Mental Health Review Board [2013] WASCA 128 (24 May 2013) 

Court's judgement that the Mental Health Review Board does not have the 

power to carry out a review of an involuntary patient order after the person 

has ceased to be an involuntary patient 

LS (appellant) had a long standing history of mental illness. On 11 May 2011, Dr L made 

a Community Treatment Order (CTO) for LS and on 13 May 2011, revoked the CTO and 

ordered that LS be detained in an authorised hospital as an involuntary patient under 

section 70(1) of the Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) (MH Act). 

On 10 June 2011, Dr L ordered LS to continue to be detained under an involuntary 

treatment order. On 12 July 2011, the Mental Health Review Board (the Board) decided, 

under section 138 of the MH Act, to continue the involuntary order made by Dr L and on 

22 July 2011, LS commenced proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal (the 

Tribunal) for review of the Board’s decision. 

On 2 September 2011, the Board conducted a hearing to review the CTO of the 15 

August 2011. The Board concluded that LS was no longer an involuntary patient within 

the terms of the MH Act. On the 6 September 2011, the Tribunal dismissed LS’s 

application made on 22 July 2011 for review of the Board’s decision because the 

Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to review a decision of the Board where LS was no 

longer an involuntary patient. 2 

LS made an appeal in the WA Supreme Court of Appeal (the Court) against the 

Tribunal’s order. LS relied on three grounds for appeal, these were: 

1. The Tribunal erred in concluding that a review of an order of the Board under 

section 148A of the MH Act ‘falls away’ when the subject of the review ceases to be 

an involuntary patient. 

2. The Tribunal made an error when it concluded that the powers of the Board when it 

carries out reviews and periodic reviews of involuntary patient orders under 

sections 138, 139 and 142 of the MH Act ‘falls away’ when the subject ceases to be 

an involuntary patient; and 

3. The Tribunal erred when it treated the conditions under sections 138(3) and 139(2) 

of the MH Act as being functions and discretions of the Board to be exercised by the 

Tribunal under sections 29 (Tribunal’s powers in Review Jurisdiction) of The State 

Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (the SAT Act). 

The Court considered relevant sections of the MH Act, including the provisions for 

involuntary patient orders, the powers of the Board, applications to the Tribunal and the 

jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal under The State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 

(WA) (SAT Act). 

The Court observed the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction with regard to pervious case 

authorities. In particular, the Court noted that the Tribunal is required to give attention 

2 See LS and Mental Health Review Board [2012] WASAT 76 (20 April 2012)


to the situation existing at the time of the decision under review. 3 Furthermore, the 

powers of the Tribunal may be broader than the original decision maker but the task of 

the Tribunal is to reconsider what the original decision maker did. The Court found 

nothing in the SAT Act that enabled the Tribunal to deal with a matter that is ‘different 

in essence’ from what was before the original decision-maker. 4 

The Court dismissed the first ground for appeal because the Tribunal was unable to 

undertake its statutory power as LS had ceased to be an involuntary patient at that time. 

The Tribunal did not lack jurisdiction, but used its powers under section 47(1)(a) of the 

SAT Act to dismiss the proceeding. 

The Court considered the second ground of LS’s appeal and held that the Board's power 

to review under section 138 (and sections 139 and 142) is dependent upon the person 

concerned being an involuntary patient at that time. The provision is forward-looking in 

that it requires the Board to consider if the involuntary order at the time ‘should 

continue to have effect’. It is not required to consider whether a past decision is correct 

or not. 

In making the decision, the Board is to have regard to the person’s psychiatric and 

medical history at that point in time. The Board is to then determine the decision for the 

future, taking into account the best care and treatment that least interferes with the 

person’s rights and dignity. 5 In addition, the Court concluded that section 144 MH Act 

where the Board may review an involuntary case at any time, does not confer any 

power on the Board to consider the validity of previous involuntary patient orders. 

In relation to the third ground of appeal, the Court held that reviews under sections 138 

and 139 of the MH Act and section 29(1) of the SAT Act are ‘functions’ of the Board as 

defined in section 5 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA). ‘Function’ is defined in the 

Interpretation Act 1984 as ‘powers, duties, responsibilities, authorities and jurisdictions.’ 

The Court dismissed the appeal. 


New Zealand 

Grobler and Accident Compensation Corporation [2013] NZACC 115 (24 April 

2013) 

A recent judgment of the District Court considered whether delays during labour caused 

a baby to suffer a ‘treatment injury’ for the purposes of the Injury Prevention, 

Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (the Act), and thus rendered the baby 

eligible for cover from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). 

In September 2009, after a series of complications, Carla Grobler-Barrington (Ms G) 

gave birth to Amelia Grobler-Barrington (Amelia). On birth, Amelia was diagnosed with 

hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), a condition affecting brain functioning caused 

by the brain being deprived of oxygen during birth. The question before the court was 

whether Amelia’s condition was caused by the treatment of Ms G during labour. 

This judgment relates to a recent decision of the Health and Disability Commissioner 

that was reported in this publication in May 2013. That decision criticised the conduct of 

Ms G’s midwife prior to the arrival of Ms G at hospital. This judgment focuses on the 

actions of hospital staff after Ms G’s arrival at hospital. 

3 S 27(2) SAT Act and see Health Reports of Australasia Pty Ltd v Western Australian 

Planning Commission [2007] WASAT 60 

4 s29(9) SAT Act 

5 s5 and s6(2) MH Act


Ms G went into labour on 11 September 2009 at about 9:00pm, at about which time she 

was taken to the hospital by her midwife. During the night, Ms G developed a fever and 

then later, during an examination, her membranes ruptured with evidence of fresh 

meconium. This was later determined to be caused by chorioamnionitis, a bacterial 

infection in the membranes of the womb. 

At 7:40am, an obstetrician determined that an attempt should be made to deliver 

Amelia vaginally. Ms G attempted to give birth vaginally a number of times, but Amelia 

refused to rotate to the correct position for delivery. At 8:30am, the obstetrician 

determined that Amelia could not be delivered vaginally and that hospital staff would 

need to perform a caesarean section. 

Further issues arose during the caesarean section. The anaesthetic initially failed to 

work and so hospital staff decided to use general anaesthetic. The hospital staff then 

had difficulties inserting a tube into Ms G’s throat to maintain an open airway. Ms G had 

had the same problem in a previous surgery, but this was not brought to the attention 

of hospital staff. 

After birth, Amelia had seizures and was diagnosed with HIE. The Court had to consider 

whether Amelia’s HIE could be attributed to the underlying disease of chorioamnionitis 

or the hospital staff’s treatment of Ms G. 

Experts largely agreed that it was unlikely that the delay caused by issues with the 

anaesthetic would have aggravated the HIE substantially. However, they determined 

that it was more likely that the 20-minute delay caused by the obstetrician’s decision to 

attempt a vaginal birth exacerbated the HIE (although this was disputed by one expert). 

The judge weighed the expert evidence and considered it more likely than not that the 

treatment had been the cause of the injury. The delay would have caused a much 

higher risk of HIE. The judge reasoned that this high risk meant it was likely that the 

delay was responsible for the injury. 

The judge concluded that Amelia’s condition was a treatment injury under the Act, with 

Amelia being provided cover accordingly. 


Legislation 

Commonwealth 

Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Fees and Charges) Regulation 

2013 No. 94 (Cth) 

The Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Fees and Charges) Regulation 2013 No. 

94 (Cth) amends the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Regulations 1990 No. 395 (Cth). 

According to the Explanatory Statement, purpose of the amending Regulation is to 

increase the following fees by 2.9 %, subject to the Therapeutic Goods Administration's 

rounding policy, for the 2013-14 financial year: 

(a) annual charges relating to the registration, listing or inclusion of therapeutic goods 

in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, including registered goods, listed goods, 

biological and medical devices; and 

(b) annual charges relating to manufacturing licenses. The amending Regulation also 

replaces the reference to 'A$85,900' in the note to r. 3(3) of the principal Regulations 

with a reference to 'A$88,400'.


The amending Regulations will commence on 1 July 2013. 

Click here for the Bill 

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 

(Cth) 

The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 was 

passed by the House of Representatives on 4 June without amendment and now moves 

to the Senate. The Bill proposes to implement the Government's 2012-13 MYEFO 

announcement that from 1 April 2014, the premium to which the Private Health 

Insurance Rebate is applied will move in line with CPI or the commercial premium 

increase, whichever is lower. 


Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and 

Other Measures) Bill 2012 (Cth) 

The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other 

Measures) Bill 2012 was passed by the House of Representatives on 4 June without 

amendment and now moves to the Senate. It proposes to amend the Private Health 

Insurance Act 2007 and make minor consequential amendments to the ITAA 1936, ITAA 

1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953. 

The Bill provides for 2 categories of amendments to the Private Health Insurance Act: 

(i) it proposes to remove the rebate on private health insurance from the Lifetime 

Health Cover loading part of affected premiums; and 

(ii) from 1 July 2013, claiming the rebate through a Department of Human Services 

Service Centre under the Incentive Payments Scheme will cease. 


Queensland 

Health Obudsman Bill 2013 (Qld) 

The Health Ombudsman Bill 2013 (Qld) was introduced into the Legislative Assembly on 

4 June 2013. 

According to the Explanatory Notes, the objectives of the Bill are to protect the health 

and safety of the public, promote professional, safe and competent practice by health 

practitioners, promote high standards of service delivery by health service organisations, 

and maintain public confidence in the management of complaints and other matters 

relating to the provision of health services. 

Specifically, the Bill proposes to: 

(a) establish a new system to allow the Health Ombudsman to manage health 

complaints in Queensland, thereby replacing the split complaints procedure in place 

between Health Quality and Complaints Commission and the national health practitioner 

registration boards; 

(b) prescribe the Health Ombudsman with various powers, including the power to take 

immediate action to suspend or place conditions on a health practitioner's registration 

where there is a serious risk to the public; 

(c) make provision for the establishment and appointment of panels or a committee of 

persons to facilitate the functions of the Health Ombudsman;


(d) prescribe various functions on the Health Ombudsman, including to identify any deal 

with health service issues through investigations and other relevant action, and to 

receive and deal with health service complaints; 

(e) allow interim orders to be issued so restrict a health practitioner from practising 

where there is a serious risk to the public; and 

(f) make consequential and transitional amendments, including for the disclosure of 

confidential information. 


News 

General Health 

Organ and Tissue Authority Community Awareness grants now available 

Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing Shayne Neumann has announced the 

availability of A$463,000 in community awareness grants to support community-based 

activities promoting organ and tissue donation. 

Click here for the full story 

Income up, but mental illness costing A$190b a year 

The cost of mental illness to Australia's collective wellbeing has reached A$190 billion a 

year - equivalent to about 12 per cent of the economy's annual output. 


Women wrongly diagnosed after screening problems 

A potential legal action is to be launched into a mishandled transfer from analogue to 

digital imaging at BreastScreen South Australia which allegedly resulted in more than 

500 women being recalled for reassessment and 72 women told they had been wrongly 

diagnosed as cancer-free. 


New melanoma drug treatment a 'game-changer' 

Australian cancer patients will soon be able to test a potentially 'game-changing' 

melanoma treatment that could extend their lives for years. 


AMA raises concerns about decision of Optometry Board turning a blind eye to 

quality patient health care 

AMA President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said that, in the interests of quality patient care, 

the Optometry Board of Australia must reverse its unilateral decision to allow 

optometrists to independently treat patients with chronic glaucoma without first making 

contact with an ophthalmologist. 


Get some man therapy 

The Federal Government and beyondblue have teamed up in an unconventional new 

mental health campaign called 'Man Therapy' designed to battle depression and anxiety 

in Australian men. 

Click here for the full story


Medical student and junior doctor groups join forces in push for intern places 

The AMA Council of Doctors in Training has brought together a coalition of peak medical 

student and junior doctor groups to implement a joint strategy to convince governments 

to provide sufficient internships to match the growing number of medical graduates. 


Australian Health Survey: User's Guide 

Where you live can affect your likelihood of being a smoker or being overweight or 

obese, according to figures released by ABS. Louise Gates, Director of Health at ABS , 

said the results from the Australian Health Survey give us an important insight into 

smoking rates and rates of overweight and obesity across Australia. 


Government News & Policy 

Treasurer's Economic Note 

The Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer has released the latest Economic Note, which 

provides commentary on the National Accounts. 


Health A$219m over budget 

South Australia's Government has continued to overspend on health, despite former 

Treasurer Jack Snelling now being in charge of the portfolio. 


Education expenses discussion paper leaves little room for discussion 

AMA President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said that the ‘Reform to deductions for education 

expenses' Discussion Paper released by Treasury outlines an inflexible Government 

position and provides little opportunity for affected professions to supply detailed 

submissions in support of tax deductions for genuine professional development. 


Fiscal difficulty adds to case for faster privatisation 

The Queensland Government's second Budget is a reminder the Queensland Premier is 

trying to restore the State's finances the hard way. 


Hospitals 

Hospital waiting times down, fewer surgeries performed 

The latest quarterly report on NSW hospitals has shown emergency department and 

elective surgery waiting times have fallen slightly but fewer surgeries are being 

performed. 


Royal North Shore Hospital defends using operating theatres as storage rooms 

Royal North Shore Hospital has defended using four of its 18 operating theatres as 

storage rooms while moving patients to other hospitals for surgeries. 



Preventative Health 

58% of dental spending out-of-pocket 

Individuals contributed 58% of the A$7.9 billion spent on dental services in Australia in 

2010-11, according to a report released by the Australian Institute of Health and 

Welfare. 


Call to do more as gap widens in indigenous welfare statistics 

AMA President, Dr Steve Hambleton, said that the COAG Reform Council report, 

Indigenous Reform 2011-12: Comparing performance across Australia, shows that 

progress can be made on improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health with the 

right support and commitment. 


Over 3.6 million women reached by cervical screening program 

More than 3.6 million women were screened by the National Cervical Screening Program 

in 2010-2011, according to a report released. 


E-cigarettes: health revolution or fresh pack of trouble 

Smokers who want to stub out the habit are turning in their millions to electronic 

cigarettes. 


New Zealand 

Scathing report into man's death 

The death of a mentally-ill man has highlighted serious shortcomings in care provided 

by a residential rehabilitation service. 


Hamilton to end water fluoridation 

Health authorities say removing fluoride from Hamilton's water will result in at least half 

a million dollars of extra dental treatment costs in the city every year. 


Caregivers' law irks lawyers 

The Law Society has described the Government's secrecy and rush to pass new laws 

around paying family members to care for severely disabled relatives as "alarming". 



Further Information 

Brisbane 

Shane Evans 

T +61 (0)7 3119 6450 

Melbourne 

Jacinda de Witts 

T +61 (0)3 8608 2276 

Lisa Ridd 

T +61 (0)3 8608 2278 

Sydney 

Lynne Peach 

T +61 (0)2 9921 4800 

Adelaide 

Chris Sweet 

T +61 (0)8 8233 5406 

Canberra 

Paul McGinness 

T +61 (0)2 6225 3257 

New Zealand 

Rachael Schmidt McCleave 

T +64 (0)4 498 5012 

To email Australian lawyers use firstname.lastname@minterellison.com 

To email New Zealand lawyers use firstname.lastname@minterellison.co.nz 

Disclaimer 

The information contained in this update is intended as a guide only. Professional advice should be sought before applying any of the 

information to particular circumstances. While every reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this update, Minter Ellison 

does not accept liability for any errors it may contain. This Update contains hyperlinks to websites. Minter Ellison does not claim any 

association with websites which are not clearly identified as Minter Ellison sites. Hyperlink users should observe a website's terms of use 

and copyright. Minter Ellison disclaims liability for the accuracy or use of material on others' sites.

Minter Ellison Health News 12 June 2013

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?