A man who broke his legs and heel bones when he jumped from the roof of Canberra Hospital in a failed suicide attempt a decade ago is suing the ACT government for negligence.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The man, 29, had self-harmed and threatened to throw himself from the roof of a house before police coaxed him down and took him to the hospital about 4.30am on September 12 in 2007.
He was admitted and emergency department staff noted he suffered psychological problems.
Shortly after 1pm he fled through a fire escape, climbed to the roof of a neighbouring building, and jumped.
The man survived the fall, but suffered lasting injuries.
He launched legal action against the government in the ACT Supreme Court, alleging health professionals had been aware of his delusional psychosis and tendency toward self-harm, yet failed to put procedures in place to stop him hurting himself.
It also alleged staff failed to carry out inquires that would have led to the conclusion he presented a further risk of self-harm, and failed to seek authorisation for involuntary detention, in a timely manner.
The case was heard by Justice John Burns this week.
In his closing submissions, the man's barrister Andrew Muller argued staff at the hospital failed to adequately assess his mental health state and failed to adequately supervise him after that assessment.
"Those failures materially contributed to the events that followed," he said.
He said the hospital breached its duty of care by not having the man medically assessed before he jumped. The court also heard there appeared from medical notes to have been no clear assessment of the risk he posed to himself or others.
"He does not appear to have been assessed by a doctor within four hours of coming in under section 40 [of the Mental Health Act]," Mr Muller said.
But barrister Greg Stretton, SC, said the man had been under observation, compliant and co-operative before he fled. It had been a "dynamic situation", he said.
He noted the man's mother had given evidence she felt he was safe at the hospital when she left after a visit that morning.
The man is claiming general damages, arguing in the lawsuit that his injuries meant he hadn't been able to work for some time and suffered economic loss.
He also said his injuries lessened his ability and capacity for employment, claiming a buffer due to his diminished ability for work.
The man suffered fractures to his legs and heel bones in the fall, which allegedly caused reduced mobility, an inability to bear significant weight on the balls of his feet and a reduced ability to walk.
He also needed to use mobility aids including a wheelchair or crutches.
Mr Muller said the man had been told his ankle injuries meant there was a likelihood he would develop osteoarthritis in the next 10 to 15 years.
"He's also been through what would have been an horrendous injury event, jumping from the roof ... an acute episode."
Justice Burns reserved his decision.
