Smith v Reader
[2020] QSC 48 · Ryan J
An 80-year-old woman with long-standing advanced glaucoma became blind after an ophthalmologist treated a viral eye infection with steroid eye drops in 2012. The steroids raised the pressure inside her eyes, which can damage vision. She believed the doctor's treatment caused her blindness but did not sue within the usual three-year time limit. She asked the court to extend that time limit, arguing she only understood she might have a claim once her lawyers obtained an expert medical report in 2016. The court accepted it was reasonable for her, as an elderly blind woman relying on her lawyers, to wait for that report. However, the judge found the expert report did not actually show the doctor was negligent or that different treatment would have saved her sight, especially given how severe her glaucoma already was. Without evidence supporting a real claim, the judge refused to extend the time limit, and the claim could not proceed.
She was ordered to pay the doctor's costs.
Incident & injury
Alleged negligent ophthalmological treatment: prescription of steroid eye drops (Prednefrin Forte) for a viral eye infection which elevated intraocular pressure, and alleged failure to adequately treat the elevated pressure or refer to a specialist, said to have caused blindness in a plaintiff with advanced glaucoma
- Body regions
- Ophthalmic / visual (Right)
- Diagnoses
- Blindness, Advanced glaucoma, Steroid-induced elevated intraocular pressure
- Incident date
- 21 August 2012
- Location
- Brisbane
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 23 March 2020
- Claim type
- PIPA Medical Negligence
- Proceeding
- Interlocutory
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 72
- Occupation
- Not stated
Outcome
The plaintiff's application under s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) to extend the limitation period was dismissed. While the court accepted the material fact of a decisive character (an expert report) was not within her means of knowledge before the critical date, it found she could not point to evidence to establish a right of action in negligence.
Defendant
1 Stuart Reader
Ophthalmologist (medical practitioner)
Key issues
Smith v Reader [2020] QSC 48
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 in Queensland.