Court of Appeal Clarifies GP’s Duty of Care in Varipatis v Almario

Oct 15, 2024 | Publication

In a landmark decision, the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of a general practitioner (GP) who was previously found negligent for not referring a morbidly obese patient for bariatric surgery. The case, Varipatis v Almario [2013] NSWCA 76, provides important clarification on the limits of a GP’s duty of care when a patient refuses to follow medical advice.

Background of the Case

The patient, under the GP’s care between 1997 and 2011, was suffering from several health issues exacerbated by his morbid obesity. It was critical that he lose weight to prevent the onset of cirrhosis, which eventually developed in June 2001, followed by liver cancer. The Trial Judge initially found the GP negligent for failing to refer the patient to a bariatric surgeon in 1998, concluding that this omission contributed to the patient’s deteriorating health.

During the trial, it was revealed that the GP had discussed the need for weight loss with the patient in 1997. The GP had also referred the patient to a range of specialists, including a respiratory physician who in turn referred him to an obesity clinic. Although the patient had lost 30 kilograms following the referral, he ultimately refused to continue the weight loss treatment, stating that the weight loss did not improve his condition.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

In overturning the trial decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the GP had fulfilled his duty of care by advising the patient to lose weight and referring him to appropriate specialists. The Court found that a GP’s responsibility stops short of continually pursuing referrals if a patient refuses treatment.

The Court emphasised that, while a GP is expected to advise patients about the need for weight loss and offer specialist referrals, they are not required to go beyond this if the patient rejects the advice. The Court noted that further referrals in such circumstances would be “an exercise in futility.”

Crucially, the Court pointed out that the evidence from expert general practitioners and endocrinologists did not support the conclusion that a reasonable GP in 1998 would have referred the patient to a bariatric surgeon. The Court held that it would be unreasonable to impose a greater duty on the GP in these circumstances.

Key Takeaways

The Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces the principle that patients bear responsibility for their own healthcare decisions. A GP’s duty does not extend to forcing further medical interventions if a patient, fully understanding the risks, chooses not to follow clear medical advice.

This case serves as an important reminder for healthcare professionals that while it is essential to provide firm and clear advice, the legal duty of care is limited when a patient makes an informed choice to decline treatment.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

The Rise of Generative AI in Law and the Need for Caution

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), a subset of artificial intelligence focused on creating new content, has gained significant traction in various industries, including law. Capable of producing text, images, and audio, platforms like ChatGPT are among the...

Australia Introduces Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy

The Australian legal landscape is about to undergo a significant transformation with the introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This change comes with the passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 by the Commonwealth...

Building Disputes – Which Court or Tribunal Deals with Them?

In New South Wales, there are different forums to have building disputes and claims addressed. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal handles building disputes particularly residential building work claims.  There are numerous claims prosecuted and defended in...

When should a business take legal action on an overdue account?

Generally speaking, an overdue account should be acted on promptly.  The longer it is left, the greater the likelihood the account will need to be written off. Unless the debtor has a satisfactory reason for delaying payment, the account should be followed...

Court Rules Against Kmart in Personal Injury Appeal

In a recent case, Kmart has been held liable for injuries sustained by a customer in its Woy Woy store, after a mountain bike in a heavy, oversized box fell from another customer's shopping trolley, injuring Ms Rita Marmara. The New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld...

Can a Shareholder claim against a Company?

A shareholder can claim against a company under some circumstances. Shareholders have specific rights and interests in a company, and there are scenarios where they might have grounds to make a claim. Some common situations include: Breach of Shareholder Agreement: If...

What is the process involved in making a Will?

A Will is an essential document that applies once you have passed away.  It sets out your wishes in relation to all sorts of things including who is to control your affairs, who is to receive your net assets, who is to look after any children under 18 years, how...