Slaughter v Harvey
[2021] QDC 156 · Barlow QC DCJ
The plaintiff had received psychiatric treatment from the defendant, a psychiatrist, over many years and had been prescribed a large number of drugs. He later claimed he never had the illness he was treated for and that the medication caused him serious harm, and he began a claim for damages against the psychiatrist. Because the claim was still going through the pre-court steps required for personal injury cases, the psychiatrist applied to the court to force the plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination by one of three nominated psychiatrists. The plaintiff wanted to attach conditions, including having a support person present, being allowed to record the session, no photograph, and a time limit. The court decided that refusing a photograph, and keeping any single session to about two hours with breaks, were reasonable protections, but that the doctors were entitled to refuse a support person or recording. Rather than dismiss the application, the judge adjourned it so the parties could work out acceptable examination terms, and reserved the question of costs.
Incident & injury
Plaintiff alleges he was negligently advised by the defendant psychiatrist that he had a lifelong depressive illness and was prescribed a large number of drugs over decades (1984-2016), causing serious side effects and personal injury.
- Body regions
- Psychiatric, Neurological
- Diagnoses
- Alleged medication side effects, Alleged misdiagnosis of depressive illness
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 29 July 2021
- Claim type
- PIPA Medical Negligence
- Proceeding
- Interlocutory
- Plaintiff outcome
- N/A
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Not stated
Outcome
The defendant psychiatrist applied under s 35 PIPA to compel the plaintiff to undergo an independent psychiatric examination. The court found that insisting on taking a photograph, and any single session exceeding about two hours without a break or consent, would be unreasonable, but the psychiatrists' refusal to allow a support person or recording did not make the examination unreasonable. The application was adjourned to allow the defendant to ascertain whether the panel psychiatrists would examine on acceptable terms; costs reserved.
Key issues
Slaughter v Harvey [2021] QDC 156
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.
Learn more about medical negligence claims and psychological injury claims in Queensland.