HON SUK WAH v. HO KING SIU

HCPI 1042/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1042 OF 2007

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

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

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.  This case has been referred to me on the production of a report by Dr Yu, for the plaintiff, commenting on the hospital records as to the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of the deceased between the time he was first admitted to the A&E Department until he was totally unconscious.

2.  The defendant objected to the production of the report as Dr Yu  had not examined the deceased. 

3.  The deceased had a traffic accident.  He was admitted to the A&E Department of the Caritas Hospital at 18:43 hrs on the day in question.  At that stage, he had a GCS of 10/15.  Later he was sent to Kwong Wah Hospital, and was attended to by Dr Chandran.  Dr Chandran assessed the GCS to be 6/15 at 21:15 hrs, 7/15 at 21:17 hrs, and 3/15 at 21:50 hrs.

4.  Dr Chandran wrote 2 medical reports for the deceased.  There were certain discrepancies:  (1) he referred to the first GCS of 10/15 as being at 19:34 hrs instead of 18:43 hrs;  (2) he did not refer to the GCS of 7/15 at 21:17 hrs.  Dr Chandran gave an opinion that any GCS’s reading below 7/15 is deemed to be unconscious as to the feeling of pain.   Mr. Tso accepted this.

5.  Mr. Tso, for the plaintiff, wanted to adduce the medical report of Dr Yu to make right the time of the first GCS and effectively to push the period where the deceased remained consciousness from 19:34 hrs earlier to 18:43 hrs.  He also wanted to have Dr Yu’s opinion that as from 21:17 hrs (GCS 7/15) to 21:50 hrs (GCS 3/15), the deceased was still feeling pain. 

6.  Mr Cheng, for the dependant, did not query with the record for 10/15 at the A&E.  He also agreed that anything below 7/15 would be unconscious. 

7.  Mr Tso was worried as to whether it could be argued that at some stage between the GCS of 10/15 and 6/15, the plaintiff has lost consciousness. 

8.  No doctor can do better than the looking at the GCS on record, and if the score of 6/15 was only taken at 21:15 hrs, it must be presumed that anything before that must be taken to have been at least 10 because there is other score taken.  The GCS of 6/15 only lasted 2 minutes before 7/15 was taken at 21:17 hrs and no expert opinion is really needed to appreciate that.

9.  Mr Cheng did not argue against that.  He only observed that as from 21:50 hrs the score was 3/15 and the deceased was unconsciousness.

10.  In that case, the issues properly drawn, there is no need for the report of Dr Yu, not because whether he did or did not examine the deceased, but because the matter can be resolved on the existing materials by reasoning.   Mr Tso did not seek to argue otherwise.

11.  The medical report of Dr Yu is not to be produced.

12.  This case shows what can be achieved by good case management: properly identifying the issues, communication between the solicitors, and seeking agreement on matters which do not reasonably admit the contrary.  These should be done before rushing off to get the expert report.