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

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...

What types of business structures are there?

There are various types of business structures, each with their own legal, tax and operational considerations.  These include: 1                    Sole...

Partnership Disputes – Causes and Resolution

Partnerships are a common business structure.  Frequently we see disputes where one or more partners wishes to leave the partnership, and financial and other disputes relating to a partnership.  Understanding the causes of these disputes and how they can be...

What Types of Claims can be made on a Deceased Estate?

A deceased estate has a range of potential claims that can be made against it.  These arise not only from the actions of the deceased but also from legislation that deals with how deceased estates are administered and distributed. Some examples of potential...

Fundamentals of Companies – Getting the Basics Right

A company is a separate legal entity, being an artificial person that only ceases to exist via the hands of its members or via government intervention.  A company’s personality is expressed in its constitution and enables the members of the company to combine...

Loss of chance

In the landmark decision of Tabet v Gett [2010] 240 CLR 537, the High Court of Australia provided crucial insights into the principles of causation in negligence claims. This case is pivotal for understanding how courts assess the direct link between alleged...

Webinar – How to Reduce the Risk of a Claim on Your Estate

Join us for an informative seminar on "How to Reduce the Risk of a Claim on Your Estate" via Zoom on Thursday, 5 September at 8 pm. This one-hour complimentary session, including a Q&A segment, will provide valuable insights and practical strategies to safeguard...

New Industrial Manslaughter laws in NSW

The Industrial Manslaughter Bill has passed NSW Parliament and will make industrial manslaugther an offence. According to the NSW government, since 2019 more than 300 workers have been killed in NSW.  Under the new law, a business or individual can be held...