Ambulance Service of NSW v Worley

[2006] NSWCA 102

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Negligence
2. › Duty of care
3. › Paramedic treating patient
4. › Standard of care of ambulance officer following protocols
5. › Whether paramedic negligent in understanding and applying treatment protocol
6. › Whether 'nice judgment' as to proximity to death required of paramedic
7. › Ambulance Services Act 1990 (NSW), s 26
1. Negligence
2. › Duty of care
3. › Statutory body preparing treatment protocols
4. › Standard of care in formulating protocols for paramedics
5. › Whether protocol should have provided for intramuscular administration of adrenaline
6. › Whether scientific evidence supported change to protocol
7. › Whether Medical Advisory Committee negligent in maintaining protocol
1. Negligence
2. › Standard of care
3. › Professional negligence
4. › Medical and pharmacological practice
5. › Bolam principle
6. › Whether standard determined solely by reference to accepted professional practice
7. › Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
8. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5O, 5P
1. Appeal
2. › Appellate review of findings of fact
3. › Restraint in disturbing trial judge's findings
4. › Whether principle of restraint applies where trial judge asked wrong question
5. › Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Quick Take

A paramedic who follows treatment protocols according to a reasonable understanding of their terms is not negligent, even if the understanding is later shown to be incorrect, where the protocol was confusing or ambiguous. The standard of care for a statutory body preparing treatment protocols for paramedics is assessed by reference to the scientific and medical literature available at the time, and the body's failure to adopt a particular change is not negligent where the scientific evidence does not support the view that a change was reasonably required. There is no abstract standard of care applicable to an ambulance service independent of the conduct of its officers and the preparation of its protocols. The Fox v Percy principle of appellate restraint does not protect findings where the trial judge asked and answered the wrong question.