Elijah Saatori v. Raffles Medical Group
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 1114/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 April 2008.
1. This is a medical negligence action brought by Mr Saatori against Raffles Medical Group, alleging that some 4 years ago a nurse, employed by the Group, negligently syringed his ears resulting subsequently in him suffering from the condition known as tinnitus.
Cites 1 case
|
HCPI 1114/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1114 OF 2006 ----------------------
---------------------- Before: Hon Saunders J in Court Date of Hearing: 11 April 2008 Date of Judgment: 11 April 2008 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1.This is a medical negligence action brought by Mr Saatori against Raffles Medical Group, alleging that some 4 years ago a nurse, employed by the Group, negligently syringed his ears resulting subsequently in him suffering from the condition known as tinnitus. 2.It is a fundamental principle of a medical negligence action that must be a proper medical report from an expert establishing liability or at least arguable negligence on the part of the defendant medical person, and linking that negligence, by causation, to the condition suffered by the Plaintiff. 3.Mr Saatori has filed four medical reports. None of those medical reports are sufficient to establish the required negligence or causation. 4.I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr Saatori, for I understand the difficulty he feels, the discomfort he feels, the anguish he feels, it goes beyond discomfort. 5.But in the absence of any evidence that the tinnitus has been caused by the syringing, that evidence coming from an appropriately qualified medical expert, the claim against the Raffles Medical Group must be struck out. (Discussion re costs) 6.The plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs of the action to be taxed on a party and party basis.
Mr Michael Lintern-Smith of Messrs Robertsons, for the Defendant Plaintiff in Person Appeal dismissed: see CACV109/2008 dated 11 March 2009 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCPI 1114/2006