HUI FUNG PING v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

HCPI 589/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 589 OF 2008

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

D E C I S I O N
(NO. 2)

----------------------

1.  The issues at this Pre-trail Review (PTR) are whether to call the respective orthopaedic surgeons and the occupational therapists.

2.  The Plaintiff had a stroke and was admitted to the Tuen Mun Hospital.  She was a lady of over 80 years old.  During her stay at TMH, she had a fall and fractured her hip. 

3.  At the moment, she is suffering from both dementia as well as immobility.  She has been in a nursing home for the last 4 years and her claim is to return home with 24 hours care and attention.

4.  The respective orthopaedic surgeons are Dr Wong See-Hoi and Dr PS Ko.  The issue is whether the present immobility is caused by dementia or by the injury.  Dr Wong said it was mostly caused by the fall, but Dr Ko said that it was mostly caused by vascular dementia.

5.  Apart from Dr Wong and Dr Ko, there are two neurologist experts, Dr YT Kan, for the Plaintiff, and Dr Edmund Woo, for the Defendant.  On the cause of immobility, they stated that the primary cause was vascular dementia, with only about 6% caused was by the fall.

6.  Miss Pang, for the Plaintiff, as well as Miss Hung for the Defendant, wish to call Dr Wong.  Miss Pang wanted Dr Wong in general to amplify his opinion but could not frame any specific questions which could be addressed by him on paper.  Miss Wong wanted to cross-examine him on the other three doctors’ view.  In fact, Dr Wong has been asked to give a supplemental opinion in consideration of the joint opinion of Dr Kan and Dr Woo, but he maintained his own previous view.

7.  I have said time again that whether there is the need to call the doctors depends on whether there are materials otherwise before the court to resolve the matter.  In this case, they should be ample materials before the trial judge for resolution of the matter and I do not think calling Dr Wong is necessary.

8.  As to the joint occupational therapist aspect, the claim is about $4 million, with $2.6 million being accommodation and nursing.

9.  The Plaintiff has been at a nursing home for the past 4 years, and I think it will be the judge’s decision as to whether she should, at the age of 84 years, to return from nursing home to home.  The occupational therapists have given the accommodation options and the costs.  I think ultimately the question is what is reasonable necessary for the welfare and compensation of the Plaintiff.  In the premises, I do not think the occupational therapists need to be called either.

10.  I grant leave for the Plaintiff to file supplemental statement as to future accommodation needs before 24 July 2009, and for reply, if any, within 14 days thereafter.  

11.  The revised table on cost of future nursing and medical care be also filed before 24 July 2009 and reply within 28 days thereafter. 

12.  The case is to be set down in the Running List (with 3 days) on or before 1 September 2009.  

13.  The costs of this PTR be in the cause with Legal Aid taxation.

14.  The costs on the last PTR were reserved.  That hearing was to resolve problems with the occupational therapist report: (1) the Plaintiff’s expert did not agree to any joint site visit in the daytime because she had a teaching job; (2) the experts refused to meet to discuss on a joint report.  Hence, I ordered replacement with two other experts. 

15.  I order Defendant’s costs in the cause for the last PTR on the ground of problem (1).