Minter Ellison Health News 12 June 2013

6 MINTER ELLISON LAWYERS HEALTH NEWS 12 June 2013
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.
Click here for the full decision
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'.