Former worker sues Mackay Base Hospital over alleged medical breach

A former regional hospital staffer is suing her old workplace for more than $800,000 alleging a tumour was left untreated for five years despite medical staff discovering a potential health risk during a mandatory test.

A former Mackay Base Hospital staffer is suing her old workplace for more than $800,000 alleging it failed to “advise, diagnose and treat” after finding a potential health risk via mandatory testing on the job.

Lesley Ann Pocock claimed she now suffered from debilitating pain after an “invasive” operation, which may have been avoided if the hospital had advised after finding a lesion in her chest five years before a CAT scan revealed a tumour.

The 55-year-old had been working at Mackay Base Hospital as a phlebotomist when in August 2013 she underwent an X-ray after she was exposed to tuberculosis through her job.

Supreme Court documents viewed by this publication revealed the X-ray “showed a lesion in the lower chest” but was reported as showing “subtle opacification through the left lower zone”.

Later that month Ms Pocock was told she did not have tuberculosis and alleged she was “not advised of the context of the 2013 X-ray report”, the document stated.

“(She) was not asked to undergo any further medical investigations,” it stated.

Lesley Ann Pocock underwent a thoracotomy to resect a tumour in her chest.

In December 2018 she completed an over-50s bowel cancer screening and as a result a large left chest mass was seen on a CAT scan, and it was later diagnosed as a tumour.

The document stated a PET scan of her chest in January 2019 showed it was compressing her lung tissue – she had a biopsy in February and a “thoracotomy to resect the tumour” in March that year.

Ms Pocock later had intercostal nerve ablations in February 2020 and July 2021 because of “ongoing nerve pain”.

The 55-year-old has filed a claim totalling $839,865, plus interest and costs alleging Mackay Hospital and Health Service breached its duty of care to her.

She has alleged, according to court documents, a “competent and skilled hospital (through its medical practitioners) exercising reasonable care and skill” would have told her about the lesion in 2013, advised her to have another lateral X-ray and advised the best way to manage the lesion.

Ms Pocock claimed the hospital “failed to take the steps” and it was a departure from what would have been widely accepted by peer professional opinion in Australia in 2013 to be competent professional practice and a departure from an acceptable standard of care”.

She claimed had she been informed in 2013 she would have undergone a further X-ray and biopsy in August or September of that year and had it been malignant, a thoracoscopic resection in September or October.

“She would have only required and undergone conservative treatment for the lesion/tumour in her chest without requiring a thoracotomy,” the document stated.

Ms Pocock is suing Mackay Hospital and Health Service over an incident that happened when she had been working at Mackay Base Hospital. Picture: Liam Kidston

“(She) would not have suffered psychological injury from the prolonged and invasive treatment of the lesion/tumour in her chest.”

Ms Pocock has claimed because of MHHS’s alleged failure the “diagnosis and treatment of the lesion in (her) chest was delayed by five years” and as a result the tumour had grown larger and she had to undergo the thoracotomy “which left (her) with ongoing chest and nerve pain including spasm” and a psychological injury including post traumatic stress disorder.

The document stated in 2018 she had been working as a disability support worker earning about $1200 per week and had to resign because she had difficult performing her duties after her surgery.

She claimed she found it difficulty maintaining work because of her injuries. She also relocated to Cairns and now worked as a receptionist for $30 an hour.

“Had (she) not suffered the injuries she would have continued to work as a support worker until retirement as she enjoyed the flexible hours and derived satisfaction from making a difference in the life of people with a disability,” the document stated.

This publication reached out to MHHS, but the organisation was “unable to comment on this matter as it is subject to legal proceedings”.