Where a medical practitioner fails to warn of multiple distinct material risks, liability is limited to harm from risks that materialised and were unacceptable to the patient. A patient cannot recover for harm from a risk they would have accepted, merely because they would have declined surgery if warned of a different, unrelated risk that did not materialise. The factual inquiry under s 5D(1)(a) should encompass all undisclosed risks, but the scope of liability under s 5D(1)(b) limits recovery by reference to the relationship between the specific risk that came home and the patient's willingness to accept that risk.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 39 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 39 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.