Woman to continue trial against multiple Sunshine Coast health providers

An elderly woman hospitalised for months when a surgeon perforated her oesophagus has commenced proceedings against two Sunshine Coast health providers, after the Supreme Court refused their applications to dismiss new evidence.

The woman is suing the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service. Picture: Patrick Woods.

An elderly woman hospitalised for months when a surgeon perforated her oesophagus has commenced proceedings against two Sunshine Coast health providers, after the Supreme Court refused their applications to dismiss new evidence.

Christine Ann Lewis, 78, has claimed a total of three defendants including a surgeon, the Sunshine Coast University Private Hospital and Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service breached their duty of care after an emergency surgery left her with a perforated oesophagus and ongoing health complications.

According to Supreme Court documents, Ms Lewis’ first surgery was undertaken privately with surgeon Priscilla Martin in December 2018, 48 hours afterwards the 78-year-old was admitted as a public patient at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital in the intensive care unit.

“Over the ensuing 48 hours, the plaintiff alleges that she developed symptoms of vomiting, difficulty swallowing, hypertension, poor appetite and feeling generally unwell,” the documents stated.

The court documents state the allegations made by Ms Lewis related to her treatment in the time period following the first surgery and the esophageal perforation that occurred during a second surgery.

Doctor Priscilla Martin.

“These allegations include a failure to act upon and investigate the signs and symptoms of an infection, namely the oesophageal perforation, in a timely manner and failing to consult a cardiothoracic surgeon upon recognition of esophageal perforation, mediastinal collection and bilateral pleural effusions,” the documents stated.

“She also alleges a failure to transfer the plaintiff’s care to a cardiothoracic surgeon upon recognition of the esophageal perforation, mediastinal collection and bilateral pleural effusions.”

Ms Lewis claimed the second surgery was performed without the consultation of an appropriate specialist or adequate warning of the possible complications.

It is not disputed in the court documents that the second surgery resulted in perforation and the ongoing complications experienced by Ms Lewis in the following years, including chest pain, nausea and vertigo.

Supreme Court Judge Tom Sullivan said the new evidence regarding the second surgery, specifically the lack of communication about the risks and alternative procedures was accepted.

“There is a written consent form in existence for the second surgery. Nowhere on that consent form is the alternative surgery identified,” Justice Sullivan stated.

Justice Sullivan stated a trial would decide on the competing expert evidence regarding the second surgery, but ultimately Ms Lewis’ application to amend the statements were accepted by the court.

“I note that there is competing expert evidence to the effect that the second surgery was entirely appropriate at the time it occurred,” Justice Sullivan said.

The Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service has been contacted for comment.