Case Document

100%

HCPI 311/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 311 OF 2006

----------------------

BETWEEN
	TSOI YUK PING, the administratrix of the estate of LEUNG KAY, deceased	Plaintiff
	and
	HOSPITAL AUTHORITY	Defendant

----------------------

Before: Hon Fung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 12 June 2009

Date of Decision: 12 June 2009

----------------------

D EC I S I O N

----------------------

1.The Plaintiff applied for late filing of her witness statement in default of an unless order. There has been general delay in prosecuting the claim by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant takes the opportunity to seek directions on the filing of expert evidence on liability.

2.The deceased had stomach pain and went to A&E Department of United Christian Hospital on 27 April 2007. He was diagnosed with gasteroenteritis and was discharged. His pain persisted and was admitted to UCH later in the night. He passed blood for the next day or so. He had an emergency operation on 29 April and a second operation for bowel resection on 4 May. He was transferred to the medical ward for monitoring of blood clotting on Warfarin. Eventually, he died in August 27 for pleural effusion and lung failure.

3.The complaint of negligence is threefold:

(1) Wrong diagnosis of gasteroenterisit by the A&E department;

(2) Delay in diagnosis of blood clot by the surgical team causing the bowel to expire;

(3) Improper use/monitoring of Warfarin by the medical team.

4.The Plaintiff’s witness statement was refused by the Registry as being late by 3 days. It contained an account of her dealings with the doctors and quantum. Ms Koon, for the Plaintiff, explained the lateness was due to the Plaintiff’s difficulty in recalling events. I have doubt on that, as the Plaintiff should have stated what she could remember anyway. Be that as it may, Dr Leong, for the Defendant, did not object, but was eager to set the medical evidence on course. Hence, I admitted the statement.

5.The Plaintiff’s expert on liability, Prof Kwong, specialist in internal medicine, is apparently giving an opinion on all the three areas of A&E, surgery and internal medicine. Ms Koon is relying on his opinion alone on all these areas.

6.Upon discussions with the parties, the following order is made:

(1) Unless the plaintiff is to file and serve a supplemental report of Prof Kwong within 28 days as to:

(a) whether he professes any expertise in the specialization of (i) A&E practice; and/or (ii) surgery;

(b) if not, whether his opinion is restricted to the practice of internal medicine only or whether it is to cover the practice of A&E and/or surgery in any event

the Plaintiff’s claim in negligence in respect of (1) A&E practice and (2) surgical treatment is dismissed;

(2) In the event that Prof Kwong’s does not profess to give any opinion on (1) A&E practice and (2) surgical treatment, the Plaintiff’s claim in negligence in respect of those areas be dismissed.

7.The parties agreed that if Prof Leong were nevertheless giving an opinion on A&E and surgery notwithstanding no claim of expertise therein, the matter could be dealt with by the trial judge.

8.I further order that unless the Defendant is to file and serve:

(1) witness statements within 42 days from the time limited for the filing of the supplemental report by Prof Kwong;

(2) expert reports in internal medicine and such other areas of specialization(s) as claimed and/or nevertheless sought to be covered by Prof Kwong within 56 days from the time limited for the filing of the supplemental report by Prof Kwong