Does your Doctor owe you a duty to disclose an “adverse event” following treatment?

Feb 16, 2023 | Publication

A doctor has a duty to disclose to you an adverse event if the usual practice is for the doctor to disclose the adverse event.

A doctor’s duty to inform patients of treatment that has been given or will be given is integral to the provision of medical care and treatment. As Bryson J once stated “One cannot stick a needle into a person and walk away wordless, as one would with a horse.”

In Wighton v Arnot NSWSC 637 the plaintiff developed a lump on the right side of her neck requiring multiple surgeries by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that during the surgical procedures, her doctor severed her right spinal accessory nerve and that his treatment thereafter was negligent in that he failed to inform the plaintiff of his suspicion that he had severed the nerve, and failed to refer the plaintiff to an appropriate specialist. When the plaintiff eventually saw a neurosurgeon, an accessory nerve reconstruction was no longer feasible.

The court found that the treating doctor owed a duty to disclose given his suspicion that he had severed the plaintiff’s nerve as this was a relevant part of the patient’s medical outcome and was a necessary part of reasonable aftercare.

The court also considered that the duty extended to an obligation for the doctor to undertake investigations given an adverse outcome was suspected.

There was no finding that the doctor had been negligent in the performance of the operation generally, nor in severing the nerve. Liability only arose through the failure to disclose the adverse outcome to the patient, where it was usual practice for the doctor to disclose and investigate the suspected adverse event and provide an opportunity for remedial surgery.

If you believe that you were denied a better medical outcome due to your doctors’ failure to disclose an adverse event contact McAuley Lawyers to speak to an experienced compensation lawyer.

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

How does the court assess pain and suffering?

In New South Wales (NSW), the assessment of pain and suffering—referred to legally as non-economic loss—is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA"). This is compensation for the intangible effects of the injury, such as pain and suffering, loss of...

Property Disputes – How Can They Arise?

Property disputes arise in many different ways – not only in commercial contexts but also in residential settings.  Some of the types of property disputes include:...

Can a Child under 14 years commit a Crime?

In New South Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old.  A child under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. For children aged 10 to under 14, there is a legal presumption known as doli incapax, which assumes the child is incapable of...

Why is it important to know who your client is?

In a range of contexts, it is important to know who your client is. In most professional service contexts, the identity of the client is the starting point to providing advice.  If it is not clear who the professional advisor is advising, this can cause issues as...

Mental Harm Damages Following Birth Trauma: Lessons from Sorbello

In South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2024] NSWCA 14, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has provided timely guidance on two important issues in personal injury litigation: how courts choose between competing expert opinions on mental harm, and...

Damages for Defamation – Newman v Whittington [2025] NSWSC 275

A family dispute resolution practitioner was awarded $150,000 in aggravated damages, $10,000 in interest, and an injunction in a recent Supreme Court of New South Wales case. The defendant posted defamatory statements about the plaintiff on WordPress, Facebook, and...

Review Panel Determines Right Hand Injury as Non-Threshold Injury

The Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has ruled in Tasseli v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2025] NSWPICMP 49 that damage to pre-existing surgical hardware constitutes a non-threshold injury, entitling the Claimant to ongoing statutory benefits and...

What are 5 legal requirements for a business?

When a new business is set up, there are various legal aspects which should be considered.  Some are more important than others in the early stages.  Obviously the nature of the business will dictate more specific legal requirements. We set out below some...

Court Dismisses Group Proceeding

A significant class action against Waller Legal Pty Ltd has been halted after the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that the proceeding should no longer continue as a group proceeding. The case, Jane Jones (a pseudonym) v Waller Legal Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 42, involved...