‘I lost everything’: Woman’s $1.9m case against public hospital, private surgeon
A woman has launched a huge lawsuit after staff allegedly took too long to diagnose and operate after she presented at a major Brisbane hospital.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A Brisbane mother says she has lost everything and suffers ongoing pain, reduced mobility and lost bowel function because medical staff allegedly took too long to diagnose and successfully operate on her after she presented at a Queensland hospital, according to her filed lawsuit.
Meagan Hammond, 40, has launched a $1.9m damages claim against Queensland Health’s Metro North Hospital and Health Service and a private surgeon, Dr Michael Bryant, alleging it took almost four days to properly treat her after she went to The Prince Charles Hospital on June 10, 2018.
The 40-year-old woman blames the hospital and treating doctors for her alleged ongoing back pain, reduced mobility in her lower limbs, loss of vaginal sensation and sexual function, loss of bowel function, surgical scarring, and a secondary psychiatric injury.
Ms Hammond had unrelenting back pain and decreased mobility on June 8-9, 2018. She went to The Prince Charles Hospital’s emergency department about 5am on June 10.
She was assessed by various doctors and sent home about 10am, but told she should return if her pain did not ease, she felt numbness, or any bowel or bladder problems.
Just after 9pm that day, an ambulance was called for Ms Hammond and she was brought to The Prince Charles Hospital and seen just before 11pm.
“She was complaining of uncontrolled lower back pain, left lower limb numbness, foot drop, difficulty or incapacity of walking,” her statement of claim alleges.
“She was triaged as a priority code 4 – representing a non-urgent case – and treated with heat pack and analgesia.”
Ms Hammond was formally admitted to PCH about 9.30am the next day.
A later medical note said: “She has been seen in the f/tchair, has been there 10 hours till seen due to extreme pressure in ED overnight.”
After an MRI later that day, doctors concluded Ms Hammond “had significant disc protrusion in L3/4 and L4/5 causing canal intrusion and a potential cauda equina”.
The note in the record was that she needed “urgent neurosurgical review and likely urgent decompression … (she) has private insurance and wants to get a (private) surgeon’s details from her family”.
Ms Hammond nominated Dr Michael Bryant, who at the time was based at Holy Spirit Northside Hospital – now known as St Vincent’s Private Hospital Northside in Chermside.
She was transferred and admitted at Holy Spirit about 8pm on June 11.
Dr Bryant operated on her for the first time at 7am on June 12.
“On post-op assessment, the plaintiff (Ms Hammond) had ongoing weakness and lack of movement in her ankles,” her statement of claim alleges.
“An MRI on June 13 found mild to moderate canal narrowing at L4/5.”
Dr Bryant operated on her for a second time about 6pm on June 13.
Ms Hammond – who is represented by Gold Coast law firm Smith’s Lawyers, based in Southport – filed her original civil claim in Brisbane Supreme Court in June 2021.
She is seeking damages and compensation to the value of $1.99m including past and future lost income, medical expenses, as well as future care and expenses.
“She was incorrectly triaged at priority 4 in circumstances where she required urgent medical review and treatment,” the statement of claim alleges.
“(The Prince Charles Hospital) delayed requesting an MRI of the lumbar spine for approx. 12.5 hours after her presentation, delayed referral for examination by neurosurgeon of spinal surgeon for approx. 15.5 hours after presentation.
“ (PCH) failed to properly or adequately communicate to the second defendant (Dr Bryant) that the MRI demonstrated, and the radiologist identified, potential cauda equina syndrome and consequently a likely need for urgent decompression surgery.
“As a consequence of the failures and delays herein, effectively delayed decompression surgery by 24-48 hours.”
“Furthermore, the second defendant (Dr Bryant) cleared the plaintiff to eat and drink prior to clinically assessing her, in circumstances where it was not appropriate to do so … (and) delayed the surgery by 12-14 hours in circumstances where it was inappropriate to do so.
“He performed an incomplete decompression and laminectomy on June 12, necessitating further decompression surgery on June 13, in doing so, he delayed the complete decompression of the spinal lumbar canal by a further 24 hours.”
In defence documents filed in Brisbane Supreme Court, Dr Bryant denies that he told Dr Thomas Hoey (at PCH) that Ms Hammond “could eat and drink”.
He claims Dr Hoey made that note himself and it was “his own conclusion and order to that effect”.
“The plaintiff’s decompression surgery was performed as soon as reasonably practicable and safe to do so, given the dangers of operating when the plaintiff had been eating and drinking,” Dr Bryant’s defence states.
Dr Bryant also denies any error in his first surgery on Ms Hammond, saying the second operation was not related to her cauda equina syndrome.
“The condition of cauda equina syndrome was fully treated by the surgery on the morning of June 12, and the operation on June 13 was surgery for chronic arthritic changes causing residual symptoms and not cauda equina syndrome,” according to court documents.
Overall, Dr Bryant said he provided “timely and appropriate assessment, management, diagnosis, and surgical treatment” to Ms Hammond.
“The plaintiff would always have suffered pain, discomfort, and loss of enjoyment of amenities of life as a consequence of her underlying spinal disease and cauda equina syndrome diagnosis and subsequent treatment, no matter when performed on or following the evening of June 11, 2018,” his defence documents read.
In defence documents filed on behalf of Queensland Health’s Metro North, which includes The Prince Charles Hospital, the hospital argues Ms Hammond’s cauda equina syndrome symptoms developed after she was referred to Dr Bryant and transferred.
“She did not present with signs and symptoms constituting the clinical diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome; the MRI scan was not consistent with, and did not support the diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome; she did not have cauda equina syndrome at the time when she was referred by the Hospital to (Dr Bryant),” according to court documents.
The hospital also states there is “no reliable evidence” for an improved patient prognosis if surgical decompression occurs within that 48 hour period, compared to a later time.
“If the plaintiff has suffered the symptoms or injuries alleged (which is not admitted) … [the hospital] denies such symptoms have been suffered by reason of any alleged delay in decompressing her cauda equina or lumbar spine, because the plaintiff underwent decompression within the 48 hour period,” it alleges.
“(Even) if (Ms Hammond) could have been advised of the diagnosis and the need for urgent decompressive surgery earlier on June 11 2018 than was in fact the case, (she) would have opted for such surgery to be performed privately by (Dr Bryant) in any event.”
Ms Hammond told The Courier-Mail that her spinal cord was “being crushed essentially” and she “had a disc that had herniated all through my spinal cord”.
“I lost everything, I lost my family, I can never walk my dogs again, my 11-year-old at the time couldn’t cope with the wheelchair so I essentially lost my role to her, my husband walked out, I couldn’t do the job that I loved,” she said.
“I have no bowel function – it takes me three hours to go to the toilet because I have to drive an hour to a clinic, an hour and a half on the table, and then an hour home.
“Everyone goes to the toilet every day naturally. I can’t do that any more, no medication works any more.
“I can’t even tell you that one person did something wrong to me, the entire medical system, every person who came into my room for the first three or four days let me down.”
Ms Hammond told The Courier-Mail that she has been able to return to work as a nanny, and while she believes some potential employers turned her away due to her disability, she has found families who understand and are happy to give her a go.
“I want enough (financial compensation) that I can have as close to the life that I had prior to this occurring, in terms of making things easier for me,” she said.
“In the current rental market, I’ve had to move into a home that is two storeys, I can’t carry my seven-month-old baby up and down stairs without great struggle.
“I want to be able to have the support that I need to make life happen, to not be a struggle, to go to the toilet without having to worry about how I pay for that next time.”
The matter is listed for review on October 10 this year.
Requests for a trial date listing are to be submitted by the various parties involved by October 25.