LI WAI HO v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

HCPI 126/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 126 OF 2009

____________

____________

________________________________

REASONS  FOR  DECISION

________________________________

1.  The Plaintiff seeks a supplemental joint neurological report in 9 months’ time as the Master has ordered no further medical and/or para-medical report without the leave of the judge.

2.  The Plaintiff was a prospective law student and part-time male model from England before the medical incident. 

3.  In 2006, he visited Hong Kong and had fever and seizures from an acute neurological condition the exact cause of which is unknown.   He was admitted to the High Care Unit of Prince of Wales Hospital under the management of the Defendant.  While being administered intravenous fluid access in the right hand, the tourinquet (rubber stopper belt) was mistakenly left unremoved without notice.  Thrombosis and ischemia (shortage of blood) resulted from the restricted blood circulation, necessitating amputation of the 5 digital extremities. 

4.  Liability has been admitted and the case is for assessment of damages.

5.  Originally, the Plaintiff was labouring under neurological cognitive deficit and was totally dependant on outside care and ambulation with no communication.

6.  The defence case so far has been that the Plaintiff’s disability resulting from the hand injury was overtaken by his overall disability in work and living occasioned solely by his own neurological condition which had nothing to do with the Defendant.

7.  During the past 3 years, the Plaintiff’s condition has improved markedly.  He is now able to walk freely with wide based gait and to board the bus, self feeding, with more comprehension of speech, and has returned to live at home. 

8.  So far, only neurological experts have been engaged, i.e. Dr Wong Chen-ya, for the Plaintiff, and Dr Richard Kay, for the Defendant.  They have rendered separate reports.

9.  Dr Wong recently suggested further observation of 9 months before finalizing the medical evidence.  Dr Kay agreed.

10.  Miss Yan, for the Plaintiff, submitted that hopefully the neurological condition will further improve and the Plaintiff may be able to resume some form of employment and/or other occupational pursuits, and compensation for the handicap of the fingers may become more relevant.  She further asked for the following reports:

(1)     Surgery to implant toe bones onto the right hand (possibly together with prosthetics for cosmetic purpose);

(2)     Alternatively, prosthetics for restored digital functions.

11.  Mr Lam, for the Defendant, objected to the further reports:

(1)     The exact cause of the neurological condition is unknown and it is uncertain as to the condition in 9 months’ time;

(2)     In any case, it is premature to obtain reports on surgery and prosthesis. 

12.  Notwithstanding the lack of clinical prognosis of the Plaintiff’s cognitive deficit, there is concrete evidence of continual improvement in the past 3 years.  He is aged 26, and his life expectancy is revised to plus 44.6 years (81% of normal).  The time taken so far for the preparation of the case has not been excessive nor prolonged by any undue delay.  It is reasonable to wait and see in the circumstances of the case.

13.  Hence, I ordered a joint neurological report by Dr Wong and Dr Kay to be rendered on or before 30 September 2010.  The parties should seek their preliminary views on the surgery and/or prosthesis.

14.  The next PTR is fixed on 11 October 2010 at 10 am.

15.  I ordered costs in the cause with Legal Aid taxation.