Obiter

Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28

In Queensland v Masson,¹ the High Court considered whether the State was liable in negligence for its paramedic’s omission to promptly administer Adrenaline to Masson, who sustained severe brain damage after suffering a severe asthma attack.²

COURT: High Court of Australia (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

PARTIES: State (‘QAS’) (Appellant), Estate of Masson (Respondent).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal (QCA).

• In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Masson’s estate sued the State, alleging paramedics negligently failed to promptly administer Adrenaline, and the State vicariously liable for the omission.³ The trial judge (Henry J) dismissed the claim finding the State not liable, reasoning the paramedic exercised reasonable clinical judgment.
• Appeal to the QCA overturned the primary court’s decision, finding that the paramedic mistakenly regarded the Clinical Practice Manual (‘CPM’) precluded Adrenaline use.⁴

FACTS:

1. In 2002, Masson, a female 25-year-old chronic asthmatic, suffered a severe asthma attack while visiting friends in Cairns.⁵
2. In Masson’s initial treatment phase, the QAS paramedic elected to administer Salbutamol rather than Adrenaline due to Masson’s high heart rate and blood pressure, before transporting her to hospital.⁶
3. Masson sustained severe, irreversible brain damage due to oxygen deprivation, remaining in a vegetative state under her parents’ care, before dying in 2016.⁷

ISSUE:

Whether the paramedic’s treatment of the patient fell below the standard of care expected of an ordinarily skilled intensive care paramedic?

DECISION:

In allowing the appeal, the High Court unanimously held that the State of Queensland, as provider of ambulance services (QAS) was not liable in negligence, either vicariously or directly: Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ.⁸

The High Court determined that the trial judge (Henry J) correctly held that administering Salbutamol to Masson was within the range of reasonable clinical judgments an ordinarily skilled intensive care paramedic could make in the circumstances.⁹ Paramedics are expected to exercise clinical judgment in applying the guidance contained in the CPM.¹⁰

The trial judge’s finding that the paramedic made a clinical judgment not to administer adrenaline because of the presence of Masson’s high heart rate and blood pressure was neither “contrary to compelling inferences” nor “glaringly improbable”.¹¹ The Court concluded that the decision should not have been overturned by the Court of Appeal.¹²

ORDER:

Appeal allowed, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal.¹³

• Print
• Mail

FOOTNOTES:

1. Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28; 94 ALJR 785 (‘Masson‘). ↩︎
2. Ibid. ↩︎
3. Masson v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 162 (Henry J). ↩︎
4. Masson v State of Queensland [2019] QCA 80 (Court of Appeal). ↩︎
5. Masson (n 1) [1]. ↩︎
6. Ibid [5]. ↩︎
7. Ibid [1]. ↩︎
8. See Masson (n 1). ↩︎
9. H Luntz et al, Luntz & Hambly’s Torts: Cases, Legislation and Commentary (LexisNexis, 9th ed, 2021). ↩︎
10. Masson (n 1) [73]. ↩︎
11. Ibid [78], [119]. ↩︎
12. Ibid [78]. ↩︎
13. Ibid [80]. ↩︎