A court has cleared the path for a woman to sue Calvary Hospital for negligence after she claimed she was likely to be infertile after abdominal surgery a decade ago.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The woman alleged her appendix was torn and bowel contents contaminated her abdominal cavity, reproductive organs and other internal organs when a doctor operated on her at the hospital as a 14-year-old in 2006.
She has since launched legal action against Calvary Health Care in the ACT Supreme Court, claiming hospital staff breached their duty of care and caused her injury, loss or damage.
The hospital applied to have the case dealt with by summary judgment, which would bypass a trial, or struck out of court on the grounds that the claim was made more than six years after the surgery. That delay meant the case fell outside the ACT's statute of limitations, the hospital said.
Lawyers for the hospital argued the woman's claim was not related to an injury that was a disease or disorder, which meant she had longer to file it, and said she had not applied for an extension of time.
Court documents showed they also said the claim didn't clearly show she had suffered an injury that was a disease or disorder.
However, the woman's legal team argued the application hinged on when she found out about the impact of the injuries she suffered.
The woman said she only found out about her likely infertility when she underwent another surgical procedure in 2011, which she argued gave her until 2017 to launch legal action.
Her claim, filed with the Supreme Court in April last year, alleged she became aware of choking symptoms as a result of psychological injury at that same time.
She argued the hospital had taken a narrow view of what constituted a disease or disorder.
Associate Judge David Mossop dismissed the hospital's requests in a decision published this week.
He said it would be inappropriate for him to make a decision to either strike out the case, or make a summary judgement, due to "deficiencies in the pleadings on both sides of the record".
Mr Mossop gave the woman permission to file a reply to the hospital's defence by the end of the month to allow the matter to proceed.
The case will return to court at a later date.
