Calvary Hospital is being sued for negligence by a woman who lost her baby during childbirth, despite tests that allegedly showed the need for an emergency caesarean.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The pregnant woman was admitted to Calvary Private Hospital in January 2011 for the birth of her child.
On January 13, cardiotocography, or CTG, was used to record the fetal heartbeat and uterine contractions.
She was induced and the delivery went ahead, but the child was stillborn.
The woman has since launched civil action against the hospital and obstetrician Dr Andrew Foote in the ACT Supreme Court, claiming their negligence caused her injury, loss, and damage.
She has alleged that the CTG indicated a "significant risk" to her baby.
But her claim against the hospital, filed with the Supreme Court last year, alleges Calvary Hospital failed to "properly or adequately interpret the CTG carried out on 13 January".
She alleges medical staff failed to "heed the significance of the CTG" and warn her that she required an urgent caesarean section.
The staff of the Calvary Hospital are also said to have failed to inform Dr Foote of the woman's condition.
Dr Foote is also accused of negligence, for allegedly failing to properly or adequately interpret the CTG, its significance, and that a "significant risk" existed to the plaintiff's baby.
The woman claims the loss of her baby left her with anxiety, depression, and nervous shock, which have required treatment.
"As a result of the injuries sustained in the subject incident, a claim is made for past and future economic loss," her lawyers wrote in their statement of claim.
The woman, represented by Commins Hendriks Solicitors in Wagga Wagga, has also claimed for out of pocket expenses and domestic assistance.
"The plaintiff has required domestic assistance from her family and friends."
Both Calvary Hospital and Dr Foote are defending the claim, and have denied the allegations put by the patient.
They have both denied the allegations of negligence "as alleged or at all" or any "injury, loss or damage as alleged or at all".
The claims of economic loss, out of pocket expenses, and need for domestic assistance have also been denied.
The case has been before the ACT Supreme Court since January 2014, and is still in preliminary stages.
It appeared for a directions hearing earlier this month before Deputy Registrar Grant Kennealy.
The matter will return to court at a later date.
The plaintiff's statement of claim said full particulars would be provided in the future, spelling out her economic loss, need for treatment, out of pocket expenses, and domestic assistance.
