Moffatt v North Metropolitan Health Service [2026] WADC 6 (Link to JADE).
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant for alleged negligence in relation to the alleged misadministration of the magnesium sulphate infusion in anticipation of premature delivery of her child, the alleged inadequacy of the response to her reported concerns and symptoms, and alleged lack of reassurance provided to her as to the safety of her baby.
The defendant denied liability. While it acknowledged that an error was made in the administration of the infusion, it contended that it has not been established that the excessive rate of administration of the infusion caused the symptoms the plaintiff allegedly experienced. It contended that the plaintiff at all times remained within a therapeutic magnesium range and that a range of symptoms are commonly experienced from an infusion performed in accordance with a protocol such as the KEMH Protocol. It contended that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care not to cause the plaintiff mental harm because it was not foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude might suffer a recognised psychiatric illness in the circumstances of the case. It also disputes that it breached any such duty, puts in issue causation and the quantum of any loss suffered, and points to a range of other life events and stressors experienced by the plaintiff before, on the day of, and after the magnesium sulphate infusion incident as being the cause or contributors to her psychiatric conditions and any loss suffered.
Ultimately judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
The court held that it was foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude might, in the circumstances of this case, suffer a recognised psychiatric illness if reasonable care were not taken in relation to the administration of a magnesium sulphate infusion. ([341]).
The court also held that during and in the immediate aftermath of the incident and identification of the infusion error the plaintiff experienced a significant, albeit temporary, material diminution and worsening in her physical and mental condition, as manifested by the symptoms she experienced. ([418]). Accordingly the psychiatric harm was a consequence of the personal injury suffered by the plaintiff, and the psychiatric harm she suffered amounted to consequential mental harm. ([420]). And at [438]:
For the following reasons, irrespective of whether the case is one of consequential mental harm, as I have found, or pure mental harm, as contended by the defendant, in my view, the answer to both questions is yes. The defendant was under a duty to take care in the circumstances of the case not to cause mental harm to the plaintiff.
As to normal fortitude, the court held that contrary to the defendant’s contentions, that the defendant ought to have foreseen that a pregnant patient of normal fortitude, who was at risk of early labour or in early labour, might, if an administration error was made in relation to infusing magnesium sulphate from a 100 ml bag containing 8 g of magnesium sulphate, suffer a recognised psychiatric illness if reasonable care were not taken. ([440]). The conclusion was the same irrespective of whether the psychiatric harm suffered by the plaintiff was consequential mental harm or whether, contrary to my finding, it amounted to pure mental harm.
The defendant was found to have breached its duty in relation to the negligent failure of the defendant, by its employee, to take reasonable care in administration of the infusion, by failing to comply with the KEMH Protocol. However the other alleged breaches of duty were not proven and the plaintiff’s claim in battery also failed.
Section 5PB does not appear to have been pleaded by the defendant.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2534]