
Doctors will stop sterilization operations such as women who are pregnant can prosecute, the Supreme Court has later told.
The Court heard submissions today in a test case which centers on whether pregnancy after a failed sterilization can be considered as a "personal injury caused by medical setback".
If the Court finds, ACC will have to indemnify. If that is not the case, women will have to sue the doctor who performed the operation to obtain compensation.
The case comes after Terri Hannam Middlemore hospital doctor Keith Allenby sued after she became pregnant a year after undergoing a tubal ligation procedure in 2004.
They applied for ACC cover but was refused-just as more than 70 other women between 1992 and 2003.
An earlier court of Appeal ruling found pregnancy was not a personal injury, closing the door to ACC compensation and allowing civil cases against doctors to continue.
Dr. Allenby has appealed that ruling in the Supreme Court.
His lawyer, QC, told the Court today that Harry Waalkens cases where women become pregnant after sterilization were of high risk for doctors and health professionals.
"Doctors aren't going to do it if you take that risk ... it is the only area that you are going to be prosecuted."
He argued that a pregnancy because of a failed sterilization operation should be considered a personal injury.
The accident compensation Act 2001 did not specifically exclude pregnancy from personal injury, and it was not the intention of Parliament to do this.
Exclusion of pregnancy after a failed sterilization go "completely against the principle of the social contract" that ACC provided.
Manukau District Health Board (DHB) lawyer Paul White said that if cases were pursued, would it not only doctors politely, but also would be affected by the DHBs which costs.
DHBs because government-funded, were just as ACC, would be essentially the costs of balancing Crown passed from one entity to another.
Dealing with cases through ACC would offer security instead of exposing parties in dispute, he said.
Solicitor-General David Collins, who acts as an interested party in the case for ACC, said pregnancy was not a personal injury and Parliament not plan in cases of medical setback.
"Pregnancy is a unique, natural, organic process that must occur," said Mr. Collins.
"It is the combination of these factors that pregnancy distinguishes it from anything else that the human body can occur."
Pregnancy was been a personal injury before 1992, when Parliament changed the law to save costs, ACC and subsequent amendments had taken on the characteristics of the law of 1992, he said.
Now, someone who 8 kg of books picked up and tense their back a woman who would be covered by ACC but her back as a result of execution an additional 8 kg weight during pregnancy was not strained.
"That's because personal injury does not cover pregnancy or effects of pregnancy," said Mr. Collins.
MS Hannam, John Miller, the lawyer not made an oral submission other than to say he would accept the ruling of the Court.
Speaking outside Court, told Mr Miller APNZ that his client would love for both result.
"The consequences are that if the doctor WINS, which means that her case, ACC, which means that they cannot continue denouncing the doctor and they will have to rely on any rights of ACC. gets falls under
"If, on the other hand, ACC win and they say that pregnancy is not covered by the ACC scheme, if it has not covered you can still sue for damage in New Zealand, and that's what we do."
Mr Miller said "not really" there was a preferred result for his client.
"It didn't bother us. But I think philosophically that I prefer to come under ACC, because I think that is better for plaintiffs, better for the country, "he said.
"We replaced suing for personal injury in New Zealand because of the length takes, how long it takes, the costs and procedural difficulties, whereas ACC is a nice clean scheme."
The five Supreme Court handling the case reserved their decision.
APNZ-
By Matthew Backhouse | Email Matthew
No comments:
Post a Comment