With thanks to Oliver Lacey for noting the decision today of Zora v St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney Limited [2016] NSWDC 365.

In a claim which ultimately gave rise to a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff alleged that in the course of angiography, the right coronary artery catheter was advanced too far into the artery, causing the dye to be injected against the wall of the artery which in turn led to a dissection of the artery.

The majority of the judgment focused on consideration of the evidence. The court found that there was no breach of the duty to provide reasonable care at [136] and, perhaps inevitably, that the procedure was performed in a manner that was widely accepted by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice.

Legal issues addressed included a defence of inherent risk, which the court appears to have accepted, noting at [126] that the plaintiff did not establish that the procedure was not performed competently.

 

One thought on “Heart attack following angiography

Comments are closed.