Elderly man wins $2.2m but cannot leave his residential facility to move into his own home

Metro North Hospital and Health Service (“MNHHS”) for the Redcliffe Hospital admitted that the care offered to Mr Stewart in early 2016 was below a reasonable standard and that as a result he suffered injuries including a cardiac arrest and widespread damage to his brain because of a stroke. The stroke caused him to lose peripheral vision and suffer significant speech and motor difficulties. The Court had to determine the damages to be awarded to him and the issues relating to his life expectancy and where he was to live took up the majority of the trial.

At the time of the trial, Mr Stewart was a 71-year-old smoker. Before his negligent medical treatment, Mr Stewart had experienced depression, a detached retina causing him work limitations, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and blood pressure, vascular disease, a transient ischaemic attack, and he had previously had abdominal surgery which had left him with extensive adhesions. The parties respectively argued that he had either 4 or 6 years left to live, and the Judge adopted a 5 year life expectancy figure.

Mr Stewart’s legal team argued that despite his speech and cognitive impairments, Mr Stewart was able to communicate his desire to leave the residential facility and that he should be entitled to move into his own home because his quality of life, and his physical and mental health, would be substantially improved if he did. MNHHS argued against all of these factors. The Judge accepted that Mr Stewart was able to communicate his desire to move and agreed that his quality of life would be enhanced by additional care and therapy. However, on review of the expert opinions, the Judge found that additional therapy could be just as easily (and more cost effectively) provided in the residential facility and it was unlikely that simply being in his own home would engage Mr Stewart more in that therapy. The Judge was also not persuaded that a move to his own home would offer health benefits that were significantly better than those which he would experience if the additional therapy were provided to him at the residential facility.

Mr Stewart was awarded almost $2.2m in compensation plus an additional sum for management of the compensation by a professional Trustee.  The decision was appealed but was dismissed on the basis that the primary Judge was correct in deciding the costs of providing the additional therapy in his own home was unreasonable.  Special leave was granted to appeal the appeal decision and the High Court has now heard the appeal.  A decision is awaited.